Science 27 January 2012:
Vol. 335 no. 6067 pp. 400-401

Pause on Avian Flu Transmission Research

Add a new comment

These postings do not necessarily represent the views/opinions of Science.

One of the labs is european. In europe we have strict GM regulations for labs - work has to be risk assessed for humans and environment and submitted to a bunch of govt regulators called a cometent authority. For containment levels 3 and 4 it has to have consent. I wonder if the UK CA would have given consent for it to be CL3, if at all? Who gave consent in Holland? On the security side, there has to be a concern about public access to the data but how you resolve this with the needs of society and the way science works I don't know.

Submitted on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 14:13

Hello, Biosafety level 3 is not the highest level of biosafety, but is the suitable level to do manipulations of this type of viruses, technically this level provide all control measures needed to control potential dangers of this viruses, and even more if this type of work is performed by a group personal commited with the public, health as is the case of both group of study. I think that this type of comment doesn't help to find the appropiate measures to focus this findings in the best path.

Submitted on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 14:12

Let me cite from the statement: "laboratories in the world using the highest international standards of biosafety and biosecurity practices" This IS NOT A CIENTIFICALY ACCEPTABLE STATEMENT! Is they use the "highest intentional standard' they must make a clear reference which one! If furthermore I believe the writing of Ars Technica (

Contrary to the researchers' insistence that the work was "using the highest international standards of biosafety and biosecurity," it was conducted at so-called Biosafety Level 3—a set of techniques and safeguards less strict than is used for Ebola and the Marburg virus, which pose less potential threat than an H5N1 strain that easily infects people.

Then it is a LIE ! So Can we believe them? This is far worse than nay nuclear danger!

Submitted on Thu, 01/26/2012 - 14:11