Obama Administration Sets New Precedent

Photo Source: Intel Photos

“It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,” President Obama promised at the beginning of his term (US News). Nature’s “The Morning After” argues that President Obama’s recent decision to halt FDA efforts to make the Plan B emergency contraceptive pill available over the counter is contrary to his promise to abide by the decisions of science. But when the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, is examined with regard to the effects this decision could have on society, it becomes obvious that President Obama and his administration made the most appropriate decision possible given the circumstances. 

The Plan B One-Step gives women extra levonorgestrel, the active ingredient in many birth control medications. This hormone can affect the gametes’ ability to form an embryo and the ability of a fertilized embryo to attach to the uterine wall. The Plan B One-Step pill is not the abortion pill, but it is still very serious medication that can cause side effects such as nausea, headaches, changes in menstrual cycles, and diarrhea. (Plan B One-Step)


“The Morning After” bases its argument against President Obama’s decision on several claims and assumptions. First, it is stated that there is scientific evidence that supports the FDA’s decision to lift the 16 and under ban. Second, it is presumed that girls under the age of 17 can properly use the Plan B One-Step pill. Third, it is presumed that the benefits of lifting the ban outweigh the risks for young teenagers. Fourth, it is presumed that lifting the ban is the most beneficial option for society.


The FDA’s Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg released a statement, supposedly based on scientific research, stating that the Plan B One-Step pill was safe for girls younger than 17 when used properly (The Washington Post). However, most of this research actually came from Teva Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturers of the Plan B One-Step pill (Time Heathland). This research must be approached with great scrutiny and discretion because of the bias that is most likely associated with it.


While the FDA may have approved that the Plan B One-Step pill is safe for those under 17 when used properly, this doesn’t mean that young teenagers will have proper judgment when using the pill. “One study reviewed by the FDA, involving 335 girls aged 12 to 17, showed that 72% to 96% of them understood the proposed Plan B One-Step package label well enough to use emergency contraception safely and effectively without consulting a doctor. Another study, involving about 300 girls aged 11 to 16 also found that they could use the drug properly on their own” (Time Healthland). Obviously, if almost one third of young girls cannot adequately understand the instructions, the Plan B One-Step pill should not be readily available to them. Plan B One-Step’s website continuously emphasizes the importance of not using the pill habitually as a method of contraception. It is not inconceivable that young teenage girls would take the Plan B One-Step pill routinely as an extra measure of birth control. We must not give young teenagers with underdeveloped judgment access to this emergency contraceptive with potential harmful effects.


The FDA’s research assumes that, medically, the benefits of the Plan B One-Step pill outweigh the potential consequences. Allowing young teenagers to have unhindered access to the Plan B One-Step pill will allow them to potentially prevent pregnancy (the pill is ineffective for 1 out of 8 women) (Plan B One-Step). However, giving teenagers access to the pill without regulation could result in the abuse of this pill as a regular contraceptive and could have harmful long term effects. The Plan B One-Step pill has high levels of hormones that affect an embryo’s ability to develop. These hormones have only been administered in small doses (in regular birth control medications) for a mere 35 years. The hormones have not been administered long enough to determine the long term effects on women and their children. There is certainly not enough evidence to determine what the effects of the extremely high levels contained in the Plan B One-Step pill would be if taken regularly. Young teenagers cannot be trusted to understand the responsibility behind taking strong medication. If abused, the medication could have harmful long term consequences.


Allowing young teenagers to buy the Plan B pill will limit consequences and downplay the seriousness of a pregnancy. Allowing these things to become commonplace is detrimental to our society. In the words of President Obama, “The reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way” (Keilar). Obama was implying that giving people the same access to these emergency contraceptives as “bubble gum and batteries” would equate them to these household items in people’s minds. Alicia Kaempfe is a junior human development and human studies major at Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania, where they currently sell Plan B pills out of a vending machine in the health center. Kaempfe echoes President Obama's sentiment, saying that she did not "appreciate the idea of being able to purchase Plan B in the same way one would purchase a Coke" (Mobley). President Obama realizes the gravity and seriousness of unplanned pregnancy, and wants to avoid making light of that situation as much as possible for the young people of America.


President Obama’s decision took into account the science and research behind the ban of the Plan B One-Step pill instead of overlooking it, as Nature suggests. After weighing the options, President Obama had to make a tough, but scientifically supported, decision to not lift the ban suggested by the FDA. President Obama was not merely playing politics; as a lawmaker and a father, President Obama had to act with caution regarding minors’ access to the Plan B One-Step pill.


Works Cited

"Frequently Asked Questions." Plan B One-Step. Teva Women's Health, Inc., 2011. Web. 27 Feb 2012. <http://planbonestep.com/plan-b-faq.aspx?

Keilar, Brianna. "Obama Endorses Move to Keep Age Restrictions on Morning After Pill." CNN Politics. Cable News Network, 08 12 2011. Web. 27 Feb 2012.

Melnick, Meredith. "U.S. Rejects FDA Advice to Sell Plan B One-Step Over the Counter." Time Healthland. 07 12 2011: n. page. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/07/federal-government-rejects-fda-decision-to-sell-plan-b-one-step-over-the-counter/>.

Mobley, Carrie. "Pennsylvania University Provides Emergency Contraception Plan B from Vending Machine." Collegian. Rocky Mountain Collegian, 15 02 2012. Web. 27 Feb 2012. <http://www.collegian.com/index.php/article/2012/02/pennsylvania_university_provides_emergency_contraception_plan_b_from_vending_machine>.

"The Morning After." Nature Online. 480.413 (2011): n. page. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/480413a.html>.

U.S. News Staff, . "President Obama's Speech on Stem Cell Executive Order." U.S. News. U.S. News & World Report, 09 03 2009. Web. 27 Feb 2012.<http://www.usnews.com/news/obama/articles/2009/
03/09/president-obamas-speech-on-stem-cell-executive-order>.

Not a job whale done

                                                                                    Photo by: WSPA


Baby Beluga might never sing again if Japanese whalers keep up their dirty, underhanded politics. The Japanese commercial whaling industry has continued in spite of the 1986 International Whaling Commission (IWC) whaling practice ban, by operating under the ‘scientific research’ loophole. This loophole has perpetuated the whaling controversy which has continued to heat up and reached scalding points. People are openly objecting to Japan’s scientific research cover to continue whaling and now, violence is amounting. To prevent fatalities, plans to reach a compromise between anti-whalers and whalers are being researched. This past January, Nature Online reported one such plan that presents a market-based proposal designed by environmental scientists that involves a quota scheme. Anti-whalers can simply buy the lives of whales from whalers. This way, anti-whalers save whale lives and whalers don’t lose profit. Not only is the plan insulting, but even if considered objectively, it would never work. The plan instead would promote the whaling business and would even attract other countries interest that would start whaling to gain profit (WDCS).

Japan has defended its continued whaling practice by reasoning of the Japanese culture and that whale meat is a staple in the Japanese market. Both reasons though, hold little worth. Though Japan has had a long whaling history, the modern terminology does not resemble what whaling was. Whales are being hunted into extinction and are inhumanely killed. Also, the Japanese consumption of whale meat is very low. Thousands of tons of whale meat remain untouched, locked away in a freezer and will probably stay that way (Time).

Since Japan cannot adequately support their reasoning for the continued practice of whaling, they have adopted the cover of scientific research granted by the IWC to continue to make money. The IWC “…is a group of 88 nations, including Japan, who have signed a convention to coordinate with each other for the development and maintenance of sustainable whale stocks (Sea Shepherds).” In 1986, the IWC placed a ban on commercial whaling but allowed a loophole that allowed whaling in the name of science. Japan uses this loophole to its advantage and created the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), which is supposedly designed to “…help gather scientific data to be used for the management of whale stocks (Sea Shepherds).” Unfortunately for Japan, they aren’t fooling anyone.

While the ICR may do some research, the consensus of governments and scientists in general, including the scientific community within the IWC, questions the research quality. It is argued that the number of whales killed is too high for the necessary research and that non-lethal methods could achieve the same research objectives. It’s also been stated that the research produced has little of real value (Sea Shepherds).

The nation is on to Japan’s scheme and people are not happy. Opposition is so high that violence is breaking out. Animal Planet hosts a show titled “Whale Wars” that captures the fatal nature of the controversy by following anti-whalers who will do anything to stop the killing of whales. The TV show does not hold back and has people worried over the bloodshed. This concern has lead to investigations trying to reach a peaceful compromise between whalers and anti-whalers. In the Nature Online article “Whales for sale,” a market-based plan is presented with high hopes for achieving this feat. Unfortunately, the plan will never work despite the optimistic tone of Nature Online. In fact, it would have negative results that would cause even more harm.

The plan, which was outlined by three environmental scientists, constructs a quota system, which allows environmental groups to buy whales from whalers who in turn will not lose a profit. The scientists feel that, “under the scheme, conservationists could buy (and retire) the quotas from whalers, giving industry a way to profit from the animals without killing them. In return, anti-whaling campaigners could be more certain that their actions were reducing the slaughter (Nature Online).” According to Nature Online:

Theoretically, such a scheme would allow both sides to benefit with no loss of face. As the researchers say, it could “open the door to reducing mortality without needing to battle over whether whaling is honorable or shameful”. And both the number of whales killed and the associated costs would go down.

While it may seem like a good way to prevent more violence from occurring, this plan will actually hinder the controversy and put the lives of whales into even more danger. According to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) in a response to the claims in Nature Online:

There are strong ethical reasons for this opposition (whales being viewed as just a commodity) but there are also practical and strategic reasons for not supporting this idea. These include the fact that buying the whales' lives would help prop up a dying industry and other countries could be encouraged to start or resume commercial whaling to claim their share.

Whaling is a dying practice, but if money is going to start flowing into the business, the killing of whales will continue and quotas will be driven up. WDCS reported that if the whaling industry did start using the quota system, countries such as China and South Korea would jump on the whaling wagon.

The proposal defeats the whole anti-whaler purpose because the plan will lead to more inhumane whale slaughter. Anti-whalers will spend all what little money they have buying whale lives, but with the renewed interest in the business, quotas will be driven up and more whales will be killed. This proposal solves nothing because it will only increase violence.





Works Cited

"Whales for sale." Nature Online. 11 Jan 2012. 15 Feb. 2012. Web. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481114a.html
"Proposal For Quotas To Save Whales Rejected By WDCS." Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society International. 12 Jan 2012. 15 Feb. 2012. Web. http://www.wdcs.org/news.php?select=1145

Sekiguchi, Toko.“Why Japan’s Whale Hunt Continues.” Time. 20 Nov. 2007. 15 Feb. 2012. Web. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1686486,00.html

“Sea Shepherds vs. Japanese Whaling Research.” Networked Democracy. 10 July 2010. 15 Feb. 2012. Web. http://www.networkeddemocracy.com/japan/sea-shepherds-vs-japanese-whaling-research/

Photo: http://www.wspa-international.org/latestnews/2011/japan-quits-whale-hunt.aspx

I

nvading the Borders of Ethics

In the technologically advanced world we live in today, it has become a rarity to encounter someone who has not heard of Genetically Modified Organisms. Food products and livestock have become the subjects of genetic breakthroughs and the guinea pigs towards the enhancement of food production. However, the pioneers of gene modification, who have shifted their focus onto human subjects, are starting to slowly cross the line of ethics.

The modification of the human genome could offer breakthrough medical treatment for genetic disorders; therefore it is an innovation that won’t be ignored by the scientific community. But, the fact that this treatment could enhance humans past their naturally inherited physical and mental abilities strikes worry throughout the scientific spectrum. With the adaptation of genetic modification, comes the possibility of abuse, especially in the military realm. Although the pros of gene modification far outweigh the cons, medically speaking, a moral compass needs to be established to prevent military manipulation of potential genetically modified recruits.

Biological Warfare has been a prominent tactic in military strategy for eons. Evidence of it can be found in European history, “…attempted use of biological warfare occurred between 1754 and 1767 when the British infiltrated smallpox-infested blankets to unsuspecting American Indians during the French and Indian war.” Now that gene modification is a becoming a potential contender in the warfare equation, experts are becoming weary. According to Tony Wang, an undergraduate in the field of Bioethics, “Given recent advances in genetic knowledge, it is feasible to genetically enhance soldiers (or insurgents in non-state contexts) to be capable of surviving tougher conditions and possessing greater destructive capabilities than ever before.”
In order to maintain control over the manipulation of genetic modification, Wang offers some ethical suggestions in his article, “Towards a Military Medical Ethics Framework for Genetic Human Enhancement”. The first of his criterion involves creating an ethical framework that respects both military and medicine by, “embedding medical values within a military perspective… if we can demonstrate that from a military perspective a medical consideration must be respected, then we can construct a pragmatic military medical framework that will actually be followed and not ignored in the face of military necessity.”
His second suggestion towards providing an ethical framework is his idea that, “any moral constraint we place upon human genetic modification for military use should uphold values fundamental to the military.” This means that even if a soldier gets an order to perform an action from his or her superior, the soldier itself is still held responsible for the action and any moral constraint should uphold this value, “therefore, any form of genetic enhancement that would render soldiers not fully capable of making moral judgments is off limits.”
Wang includes two more suggestions in which he states that, in order to maintain ethical consistency, soldiers cannot be modified into “non-humans” and modifications cannot be high-risk or life threatening. Wang includes “non-human” subjects for he states that their right to return to civilian life would be revoked because they would not be socially accepted as “human”. He includes the example of human-animal hybrids and how such a creation would be unethical;

For physical transformations, if a soldier were to be half-human, half-animal, then he could not be reasonably expected to return to a civilian capacity. For ex- ample, if a human were genetically modified to grow scales, then he would most likely be shunned by society upon attempted re-entry. Even if he could function in a civilian setting, he would face stigma, avoidance, and fear by the general population.

Wang mentions that performing a modification that could potentially end in fatality also crosses the boundaries of ethics;

…the military cannot use such genetic modifications if the side effects are known to have a reasonably high risk of causing a severe effect because this violates the principles of allowing soldiers to return to a normal civilian life and preventing unnecessary harm. This is clear in the case of fatal or debilitating side effects but still applies to harmful and lasting modifications to the soldier’s gametes, or reproductive cells. It is a violation of the right for a soldier to return to civilian life if his genetic modifications cause deleterious side effects to his progeny.

As an outsider looking in, it is evident that ethical consideration is essential in preventing the abuse of genetic modification, especially concerning military matters. In order to maintain military etiquette in the field of biological warfare, Wang’s suggestions seem to provide an adequate framework. The medical attributes of genetic modification are so potent that this is a field of genetic manipulation that will be exploited. However, only the extent in the application ethics will determine how it will be utilized.

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=102&sid=a344008b-7908-486f-bdee-541a3cfa253a%40sessionmgr115

http://telemedicine.org/biowar/biologic.htm


http://www.flickr.com/photos/stock_portfolio/5409475730/

Operation Otter: Studying the Species to Save Them

                                               Photo by Wikipedia

It is estimated that three species become extinct every hour (http://library.thinkquest.org/19689/data/esframe.html). This statistic doesn’t seem plausible considering all of the organizations dedicated to protecting animals and preventing poaching. What this figure proves is that science must pick up where activism leaves off. The first step to stopping extinction is keeping new species off the endangered list and getting those already on the list off. An obvious solution would be the arranged repopulation of such species. However, in order for a plan like this to work it must be possible to track and monitor the animals to see which methods are proving successful. A current obstacle to this is the tracking devices that are in use now, which are not compatible with every species. One such species is the Pteronura brasiliensis, or giant otter, of South America (http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8f3581c5-03b4-436b-ad4c-2d9bfeabdc81%40sessionmgr15&vid=4&hid=116). Much larger than the North American river variety, the giant otters are native to freshwater ecosystems where they serve as carnivorous top predators. After being hunted for their fur for several years, the giant otter is now an endangered species due mainly to habitat destruction. In order to learn more about these animals to help repopulate the species, studies are being conducted on individual giant otters using radio-telemetry. In this system, data is collected from a device surgically inserted into the otters themselves and reports locations to the scientists. The radio-telemetry system is particularly useful because it allows specific animals to be identified and located at any given time. In order to place the measurement-taking device inside the otters, they first have to be captured and this is much easier said than done. The otters in this experiment were observed for weeks before the capture in order to learn more about their habits and schedules. The first step was to decide on the perfect den to set up the net and trap door needed to trick the animals into captivity. Once one male otter and one female otter were captured they were sedated while the radio-transmitter was implanted in surgery. Both otters were returned to the place of capture as soon as possible and they rejoined with their respective social groups as expected.
In the twelve months following this procedure, the otters were tracked and studied while the radio-transmitters recorded valuable information about their movements. The study found that the male belonged to a more outgoing group of giant otters for which “636 radio telemetry locations” were recorded. The male otter’s social circle was observed in their natural habitat by the experimenters here. The female otter, however, belonged to a particularly shy group that could not be observed in person. Only “119 locations for the female” were recorded.
The purpose behind this study was to determine whether or not this method of tracking animals is a good idea for otters in specific. Transmitters mounted on collars have proven to be rather unsuccessful on otters “due to the similar circumference between their neck and head.” This results in the otters, a very social species, being able to remove the obstruction by themselves or with the help of a friend. This has lead to research being conducted by implanted devices in “European otters, river otters, sea otters, beavers, grizzly bears, and black bears. This study hopes to prove that while intrusive, these devices can be effective for studying the aforementioned species. The recorded locations prove that radio-telemetry is an effective way to track otters and the authors predict that once the giant otter habitat is better understood, species conservation will be achieved.

Works Cited
Silveira, Leandro. Furtado, Mariana M. Rosas, Fernando C.W. Silva, Luis C. L. C. Cabral, Marcia M. M. Torres, Natalia M. Sollmann, Rahel. Kouba, Andrew. Jacomo, Anah T.A. "Tagging Giant Otters for Radio-Telemetry Studies." Universidad de Sao Paolo. <ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9f97d861-533d-4cb3-b393-288d5286dcc3@sessionmgr15&vid=4&hid=124>.

"World Endangered Species." Think Quest. Think Quest. Web. 10 Feb 2012. <library.thinkquest.org/19689/data/menu.html>.

Image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giantotter.jpg

Where's the Line?

Photo Credit: Fotos Gov/Ba

A study conducted in 2008 and 2009 showed that many scientists in the research community were fuzzy on the relationship between citizens’ rights and research to help the public. While some might say this uncertainty is acceptable given the fact that states have discrepancies between their newborn screening processes, we do not want to leave the health and constitutional rights of our children of people who aren’t really sure where to draw the line. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the views of newborn screening advisory committees on the current process and proposed reforms. The study identified problem areas with the current NBS process.

The study began by assembling a team of committees in charge of monitoring the newborn screening process in their states and advising their state legislators. The committees were taken from four states in the Mountain States region of the country (Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming), but the individual states were kept anonymous. The group met for one to two hours four times between November 2008 and June 2009. The groups were composed of lab coordinators, geneticists, pediatricians, community directors, and newborn screening staff. The groups were asked to give their opinions of the storage of dried blood spots (DBSs), the role of parents in the screening process, and the role of advisory committees in the process of newborn screening. Their responses were recorded and analyzed.

The study brought up several concerns that committees had with the process of newborn screening. It was decided that parents need to be more informed about the screening. The current process of educating parents usually consists of a stack of pamphlets that never get read. One participant was quoted saying, “People don't even know that newborn screening happens, and I know after having children, when you get stacks [of pamphlets] this high before you walk out the door, nobody reads it, so there's got to be a different mechanism.” The results indicated that parent education is one of the areas that needs to be reformed in the newborn screening process. Many participants were concerned about where it would leave them if parents were to receive more participation in the screening process. Several participants expressed concern with giving parents the option to deny researchers the right to their child’s DNA. They argued that if parents were more informed about the secondary research done afterwards, they may not want their child to even be screened at all. This would leave many children untested for many dangerous and preventable diseases.

Some, but not all, participants expressed concerns with the secondary use of the samples. One participant said, “I think it depends in part on the type of research that you're doing," and "I can see using the samples for sort of public health, seeing as they're part of the public health system already.” This brings up the issue of the intentions of research, which can become murky very quickly. If the research is for the greater good, is the current process of newborn screening a means to an end that should be overlooked because of its contribution to the future of science? Another participant argues that only the necessary tests should be performed on the samples without consent, regardless of the intent or goals of the research. This participant said, “And there's also the [question], ‘Why do you have me run screening; is it to do research, or was it because you wanted to screen for whatever disorder a child might have and help that child in that family?’” This participant has reservations about conducting any secondary research, taking into account the families of newborns being tested.

Another major issue that came out of this research was the ownership of the samples. Participants were unclear about whether the state, the health department, or patients had rights to the samples. Several participants felt that the samples belonged to the state because they were the ones regulating the screening. Others felt that the health department owned the samples, partly because they could properly organize and regulate the samples. Still other participants felt that the samples belonged to the families of the participants, citing the precedent that medical records can only be released to family.

Obviously, even those involved directly in the field and in charge of making life-changing decisions for newborns are confused about where the line is concerning newborn screening. Some areas, such as the education of parents, can be cleared up easier than others, such as the ownership of the samples, which might require legislation.


Works Cited

Title: Concerns of Newborn Blood Screening Advisory Committee Members Regarding Storage and Use of Residual Newborn Screening Blood Spots

Erin W. Rothwell, PhD, Rebecca A. Anderson, RN, BS, Matthew J. Burbank, PhD, Aaron J. Goldenberg, PhD, MPH, Michelle Huckaby Lewis, MD, JD, Louisa A. Stark, PhD, Bob Wong, PhD, and Jeffrey R. Botkin, MD, MPH

Long time no see

                           (Photo by Wikipedia.com)

 

After fifty years of hiding, the Mediterranean monk seal has finally decided to say hi. Last sighted in 1958, the monk seal seemed to have disappeared off the face of the earth until reports around the southern Israeli coastline started to crop up in late 2009 of their reemergence.

The first positive identification recorded happened in early 2010 when a photograph was taken of a female monk seal snoozing in a small sea-side alcove. Since then, the Israel Mammal Research & Assistance Center (IMMRAC) has received 45 visual reports, including video and pictures, of monk seal sightings. The evidence presented suggests that at least two monk seals are frequenting the Israeli coast which could possibly lead to the nullification of the monk seals local extinction status.

The Mediterranean monk seal is currently thought to be locally extinct from Israel. If the evidence presented is proven to not be a fluke, then it can be inferred that Mediterranean monk seals are trying to expand. This is a significant distance since their closest known colonies are located in northern Cyprus and Turkey.

Besides distance, the Mediterranean monk seal will face other challenges in colonizing the Israeli coastline. The coastal reserve by law currently protects only 16 km and there are no isolated beaches and caves free of human disruption. If the monk seal is to stand a chance in repopulating the Israeli coastline, conservation efforts need to be made a priority.

Works Cited

Scheinin, Aviad P.; Goffman, Ozz; Elasar, Mia; Perelberg, Amir; Kerem, Dan H. “Mediterranean Monk Seal (Monachus monachus) Resighted Along the Israeli Coastline After More than Half a Century.” Aquatic Mammals. Sep2011, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p241-242, 2p. 7 Jan. 2012. Web.

Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_monk_seal

Every Season is Flu Season

Throughout history, there have been recognizable patterns of the emergence of new diseases, especially influenzas. In just the last few years, the avian flu and the H1N1 “swine” flu struck fear into millions as a seemingly endless toll of victims became infected. In order to hinder the reappearance of these vicious patterns that hold a plethora of pandemics, some scientist believe that the surveillance of these flus is essential for prevention and protection. The pros to the research are made apparent in the Nature Online article “Open the Debate on Flu Research”. However, this is a polarizing issue for the opposition feels that the study of said diseases could lead to an accidental release to the public as stated in the Nature Online article “Caution Urged for Mutant Flu Work”. In order to gain knowledge of these diseases and how they are transmitted, I feel that the study of foreign influenzas is necessary.

According to Anthony Fauci, director of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious diseases, states that the debate over the issue is necessary. However, it is impossible to predict the dangers in the mutation of the diseases studied, until they are studied. “That is a problem, but it doesn't necessarily negate the potential importance of such knowledge, should we get the ability, perhaps through specialized centres, that could do much more extensive sequencing of sample viruses from outbreak areas.”

The opposition is not convinced of the potential of a public benefit from the testing and manipulations of mutant flus. “More than a dozen flu experts contacted by Nature say they believe that the work opens up important vistas in basic research, and that it sends a valuable warning about the potential for the virus to spark a human pandemic. But they caution that virus surveillance systems are ill-equipped to detect such mutations arising in flu viruses. As such, work on the viruses is unlikely to offer significant, immediate public-health benefits, they say.”

The stark views concerning this issue, brought to light by these articles, make it difficult to predict the reaped benefits of the surveillance of mutant disease and the potential dangers of public exposure. However, I feel that Anthony Fauci’s argument in favor of the research to decrease the risk of pandemics in the future is quite potent and difficult to dispute.

Works Cited

http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-for-mutant-flu-work-1.9882

http://www.nature.com/news/open-the-debate-on-flu-research-1.9896