No. While some make ad hominem attacks we make precise scientific arguments acknowledging uncertainty when it is there https://mbio.asm.org/content/5/6/e02366-14 … and http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/03/commentary-six-policy-options-conducting-gain-function-research … and https://elifesciences.org/articles/18491
-
-
-
these articles are not a failure to engage but refusal to concede that only virologists should discuss epidemiology or matters of science policy. A scientific mindset is important for this debate. A PhD in virology is neither necessary nor sufficient to comment on public health
- Nog 8 antwoorden
Nieuw gesprek -
-
-
Is there any chance they feel the same way? I respect all involved, and would gladly advocate for debate in a public forum like
@IDSAInfo,@ASMicrobiology, etc where lab/clinical/policy interests are well-represented. Copying@T_Inglesby so that this isn't missed.Bedankt, Twitter gebruikt dit om je tijdlijn te verbeteren. Ongedaan makenOngedaan maken
-
-
-
Yes they understand what is at stake. Fouchier in your Dublin twiV calls it "dual use" research and that he wants more. Medical and military. Now he will make H7N9 airborne contageous and then a vaccine for it. That is a bioweapon. Kawaoka idem for H5N1.
-
Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) is life sciences research that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety. Abridged definition from https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/dual-use-research-of-concern/ …
- Nog 4 antwoorden
Nieuw gesprek -
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.