Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Letter to the Editor

“But Nature Started It”: Examining Taubenberger and Morens’ View on Influenza A Virus and Dual-Use Research of Concern

Nicholas G. Evans
Nicholas G. Evans
Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00547-13
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Letter

In a recent article (1), Jeffery Taubenberger and David Morens examined the way that nature purportedly breaks the rules of the seven experiments of concern that characterize the current paradigm of dual-use research of concern (DURC). They argue that we ought to be mindful that influenza pandemics, epidemics, and epizootics will continue to wreak havoc for the foreseeable future at the cost of countless lives. In considering the relative merits of supporting or thwarting safe research aimed at better preventing and controlling influenza by elucidating fundamental viral mechanisms, IAV’s own actions should surely be borne in mind (1) [“IAV” stands for influenza A virus].

Yet such an argument, I argue, is a strange way of characterizing the problem of dual use, much less advancing the case for pursuing DURC.

The strangeness of this article is borne out first in the idea of IAV continually undergoing such “dual use experiments.” While evolutionary pressures cause IAV to mutate in ways that mirror the outcomes of the experiments of concern listed in recent U.S. policy (2), it seems a mistake to anthropomorphize nature. The key behind current U.S. policy is to review proposed research that “produces, aims to produce, or is reasonably anticipated to produce one or more of the effects” listed in the experiments of concern (2). To claim that nature conducts research is playing fast and loose with the criteria; that nature breaks the rules smacks of an animism that is hard to fathom.

Second, even if nature does conduct experiments, these experiments are hardly dual use in any relevant sense. The “dual” in “dual use” explicitly identifies research that may be used to benefit or harm humanity (3–6). Yet the evolution of IAV, at least in the cases that Taubenberger and Morens raise, has no benefits to human or animal health (3). If anything, the claim that the authors use to guide their reader’s intuitions—the horrors that nature visits on us via IAV—relies on the idea that there is nothing good to be expected from the natural evolutionary mechanisms that drive IAV.

Finally, it is hard to understand why nature “breaking all the rules” would motivate us to break the rules. Since the 2004 “Fink Report” on DURC (3), the power of nature to cause harm via evolutionary mechanisms creating a gain of function in IAV has been understood; it is understood that two of the legitimate aims of DURC are to understand emerging diseases, such as novel strains of IAV, and to attempt to mitigate the harms caused by such emergence (3, 4). What remains unanswered, here as elsewhere, is the question of how to properly realize the purported benefits of such research (6, 7). This is a challenge that any opponent of current regulations must address; simply advocating the dangers of IAV does little to combat regulations.

This leaves us with the unsettling impression that the authors want to convince us that “nature started it” and that the only way to finish it is to mirror nature’s efforts. Yet holding up the lives lost to IAV as an example says nothing about how compelling DURC is to pursue unless it can be shown that DURC is the best or only option that we have available to us. As I have argued, that is much more ambiguous than the authors admit.

There is no doubt that investigating the therapeutic modalities available to us through DURC will produce some benefit; no one denies that. The questions should be what types of benefits will these modalities bring and what else is needed to realize these benefits. Claiming that nature is breaking all the rules does not get Taubenberger and Morens the conclusion they want. They have to show that the best way to approach nature breaking the rules is to break the rules ourselves.

  • Copyright © 2013 Evans.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Taubenberger JK,
    2. Morens DM
    . 2013. Influenza viruses: breaking all the rules. mBio 4(4):e00365-13. doi:10.1128/mBio.00365-13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Office of Biotechnology Activities, NIH
    . 2012. U.S. government policy for oversight of life sciences dual use research of concern. Office of Biotechnology Activities, NIH, Bethesda, MD. http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/us-policy-durc-032812.pdf.
  3. 3.↵
    1. National Academies of Science
    . 2004. iotechnology research in an age of terrorism. Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, Nation Research Council, National Academies of Science, Washington, DC.
  4. 4.↵
    1. National Academies of Science
    . 2006. lobalization, biosecurity, and the future of the life sciences. Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, Nation Research Council, National Academies of Science, Washington, DC.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Miller S,
    2. Selgelid MJ
    . 2007. Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Sci. Eng. Ethics 13:523–580.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Evans NG
    . 2013. Great expectations—ethics, avian flu and the value of progress. J. Med. Ethics 39:209–213.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Osterholm MT,
    2. Relman DA
    . 2012. Creating a mammalian-transmissible A/H5N1 influenza virus: social contracts, prudence, and alternative perspectives. J. Infect. Dis. 205:1636–1638.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
“But Nature Started It”: Examining Taubenberger and Morens’ View on Influenza A Virus and Dual-Use Research of Concern
Nicholas G. Evans
mBio Aug 2013, 4 (4) e00547-13; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00547-13

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
“But Nature Started It”: Examining Taubenberger and Morens’ View on Influenza A Virus and Dual-Use Research of Concern
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
“But Nature Started It”: Examining Taubenberger and Morens’ View on Influenza A Virus and Dual-Use Research of Concern
Nicholas G. Evans
mBio Aug 2013, 4 (4) e00547-13; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00547-13
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • Letter
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511