Advertisement

Flu Review Criticized

A member of the NSABB biosecurity board that recently reviewed H5N1 data criticizes the process.

By | April 17, 2012

image: Flu Review Criticized Colorized transmission electron micrograph of Avian influenza A H5N1 viruses (seen in gold) grown in MDCK cells (seen in green).Wikimedia Commons, CDC

Colorized transmission electron micrograph of Avian influenza A H5N1 viruses (seen in gold) grown in MDCK cells (seen in green).WIKIMEDIA COMMONS, CDC

The process leading to the US biosecurity board recommending full publication of two controversial H5N1 flu papers has been criticized by a board member in a letter sent to the National Institutes of Health last week (April 12). Influenza epidemiologist Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, outlined his criticisms to Amy Patterson, associate director for science policy at the NIH, reported Nature.

The US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) had previously recommended that the two controversial H5N1 papers, which detailed  mutations that allow for ferret-to-ferret aerosol transmission, be published in redacted form, a recommendation that was rescinded at last month’s meeting. Osterholm himself voted for publication of one paper, but was concerned that modifications to the second paper did not adequately address bioterrorism concerns. In the letter, Osterholm elucidates his concerns that the risks were given short shrift and that the meeting was designed to encourage full publication of the H5N1 papers.

While Osterholm said he sees no “sinister motive” behind the meeting’s agenda, he wrote, “…I believe there was a bias toward finding a solution that was a lot less about a robust science- and policy-based risk-benefit analysis and more about how to get us out of this difficult situation.”  Some proponents of full data disclosure argue that it will aid in virus surveillance, but Osterholm wrote that no virus surveillance experts were invited. Instead he saw an “‘involved influenza research community’ telling us what they should and shouldn’t be allowed to do based on their interested perspective.”

Susan Ehrlich, a retired judge and NSABB member who voted against full publication of the second paper, told Science that Osterholm's letter "thoughtfully presents very valid points, ones that warrant further and serious discussion."

Read more expert opinions about the risks of such research in this month’s featured debate about scientific transparency and public health protection.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: tbmd

tbmd

Posts: 2

April 18, 2012

Much of our public health policies are  a lot less about a robust science- and policy-based risk-benefit
analysis and more about how to get us out of difficult situations our previous poor policies have put us into, this is just another one of those situations.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

April 18, 2012

Much of our public health policies are  a lot less about a robust science- and policy-based risk-benefit
analysis and more about how to get us out of difficult situations our previous poor policies have put us into, this is just another one of those situations.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

April 19, 2012

So after a full and frank hearing did not go his way, after changes had been made to the paper in question (Fouchier's), Osterholm complains.  Such is life....

Avatar of: Ed Rybicki

Ed Rybicki

Posts: 82

April 19, 2012

So after a full and frank hearing did not go his way, after changes had been made to the paper in question (Fouchier's), Osterholm complains.  Such is life....

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Anova
Anova
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist
Life Technologies