The debate over influenza research is still on

H5N1 virion. Photo Cynthia Goldsmith/Jackie Katz

Two years ago, a controversy emerged about the research on influenza virus H5N1, and the potential risk associated with it. This controversy followed the publication of two research articles in Science and Nature, and I wrote about it in January 2012 in this blog post. Briefly, scientists have used so-called “gain-of-functions” experiments, in which strains of influenza viruses are selected for new traits such as higher transmissibility between ferrets (the preferred animal model in these studies). The objections that were raised by some critics of this research were of two kinds: first, the information available in these papers could be used by terrorists in order to produce bioweapons; second, modified influenza viruses could escape the lab by accident and create a pandemic. The first objection led to a very rare decision in scientific publishing, namely the redaction of the articles to remove potentially sensitive data. The important public concern also led the authors of these studies to promulgate a moratorium on this type of work. After this temporary stop, the experiments started again with additional biosafety measures. 

The debate, however, is far from over. The reason for this? Well, the recent publications of several studies dealing with influenza virus, most notably a paper by Y. Kawaoka (the author of the 2012 Nature publication) on avian influenza viruses related to the 1918 “Spanish flu” virus. This research triggered a heated response from several scientists, which was loudly echoed in the mainstream press (see for instance in the Guardian and in the Independent). In that particular case, it seems that the scientific community is truly divided on the matter. An example of this dissent was the publication of a statement of concern by a group of scientists known as the Cambridge Working Group, which in essence asked for a better assessment of the risks of virus research via the organization of a conference that would deal with all present issues. Such a meeting could resemble the famous Asilomar conference of 1975, where the risks associated with recombinant DNA were debated. Other virologists, however, have fought back these reactions of distrust and have created another group, Scientists for Science, which aims at promoting the benefits of this research, and highlight the fact that serious safety regulations are already in place for virus research. 

Microbe Hunters by Paul de Kruif

‘Microbe Hunters’, as I have often been told, is a classic reading in microbiology—one of those books that can inspire the beginning of a career. In this book, written in 1926, American microbiologist and author Paul de Kruif proposes to acquaint us with the great pioneers of microbiology, from Leeuwenhoek to Ehrlich, via Pasteur, Koch, Roux and several more. 

I gave it a try, and I must confess that at first I was a bit taken aback by the quite unusual style of the author: extremely enthusiastic, overly lyric, made to immerge us in the life of the protagonists with a plethora of details that may or may not be true.  I can’t remember reading anything quite approaching the surprising and unusual tone of Microbe Hunters. Here’s an example describing Spallanzani’s early experiments (p. 34):

“What’s this?” [Spallanzani] cried. Here and there in the gray field of his lens he made out an animalcule playing and sporting about—these weren’t large microbes, like some he had seen—but they were living little animals just the same.

“Why, they look like little fishes, tiny as ants,” he muttered—and then something dawned on him— “These flasks were sealed- nothing could get into them from the outside, yet here are little beings that have stood a heat of boiling water for several minutes!”

[…] It was a great day for Spallanzani, and though he did not know it, a great day for the world.

But as I was reading further I grew accustomed to this prose, and, to my own surprise, I started to enjoy it! It is indeed difficult not to share de Kruif’s enthusiasm for these great men of the past and, even though I would take the author’s factual accuracy with more than a grain of salt, the book really makes you want to learn more about the personal life of these pioneers.