WHO calls for publication of supervirus data

Full publications of research results on the H5N1 supervirus required

21.02.2012

The dispute over publishing studies on a laboratory-bred avian influenza virus is expanding. Now, the World Health Organization (WHO) has joined in and called for an early publication of all research results.

After the US government had stopped the publication of the results of the study of the dreaded supervirus with reference to the danger of bioterrorism, a widespread dispute arose in the professional world and the public about the handling of such sensitive research data. Now, WHO is the first official body to demand the full publication of all study details from the studies of Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier on the newly bred avian flu virus H5N1. However, the data should be published at a later date. The postponement should be used to better inform the public about the purpose of such research. In fact, this raises the question of why such a dangerous supervirus was even developed and whether the instructions for the extremely deadly and highly contagious virus should be published.

Supervirus is stored in high-security laboratories of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam
The dispute over dealing with the explosive results from the studies of Ron Fouchier, professor at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and Yoshihiro Kawaoka, professor at the US University of Wisconsin, has been dragging on for months. The occasion was the development of a highly dangerous bird flu virus that can be transmitted from person to person like common influenza virus. The researchers had developed and investigated the human pathogenic virus of the genus H5N1 in two independent studies. Their findings on the currently stored in high-security laboratories of Erasmus University in Rotterdam pathogens, researchers wanted among others in the journals „Science“ and „Nature“ publish. But here, for the first time in the history of life science, the US Biosafety Bureau (NSABB) intervened to demand the secrecy of the research data. To prevent possible misuse of the pathogen as a biological weapon, the results should not be published or only in a censored version, the US authority. The editors-in-chief of the two science magazines agreed and wanted to reprint a correspondingly shortened presentation of the studies in mid-March.

Publish studies on the farmed bird flu virus in full
However, in the light of a renewed consultation in the expert panel of the WHO, the planned publication is waived for the time being. „That will not happen now“, said Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of „Science“ on Friday at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Vancouver, Canada. Because the expert panel of the WHO, in which the two study authors and the editors-in-chief of the science magazines („Science“; „Nature“), it comes to the conclusion that the imprint of a censored version would not be appropriate. The studies on the supervirus should therefore be published in full, because the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. WHO's highest-ranking adviser on health security issues, Keiji Fukuda, stressed: „The results of this research have clearly shown that the H5N1 virus has the potential to be more easily transmitted between humans.“ this fact „stresses the importance of continuing research on this virus“, so the statement of Fukuda. However, before the study details are published, more comprehensive information of the population must be provided. The public should be informed about the relevance and usefulness of research on the newly developed avian influenza virus, also to reduce the fears. Yoshihiro Kawaoka first personally engaged in the discussion about his research results and criticized the scientists „currently supporting the public“ lose, though this „actually benefited from our research“.

Better public information on the novel H5N1 virus is required
According to the recommendations of the WHO Panel of Experts, the journals want to wait some time before the full study details of the newly developed avian influenza virus are published. However, according to the panel of experts, censoring the results is out of the question, which clearly positions the WHO against the NSABB's view. The attempted suspension of a publication by the US authorities, however, seems quite questionable anyway. On the one hand, research results are there to be discussed or communicated in the professional world, and on the other hand, the US government has co-financed the development of the new highly contagious virus itself. Thus, the warning of possible bioterrorism appears in a different light. From this point of view such a virus should not have been bred, let alone financed with public money. On the other hand, if the development of the supervirus is intended to educate people about the potential risks of mutant avian influenza (H5N1) and the development of new treatment options, a detailed announcement of the current study results seems inevitable. However, it remains unclear whether researchers are adhering to the WHO call for comprehensive publication. The scientists around the virologists Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka had recently imposed a 60-day moratorium on themselves in order to rethink the publication of their results against the backdrop of bioterrorism. However, Kawaoka was confident, „find a solution when people are willing to listen to each other and make their decision based on facts, not fear.“

Supervirus - bioweapon or help in finding remedies?
The problem facing the scientists is a little reminiscent of the famous tragicomedy „The physicists“ by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, in which a physicist the so-called „world formula“ However, she has tried to keep her secret by pretending to be mentally ill in a clinic. Here try in the various opponent (intelligence agents who also pretend a mental illness and the chief physician) to wrest his knowledge. The piece takes a tragic end and the formula gets into the wrong hands while „the physicists“ stay locked up in the clinic because of their supposed mental disorders. The work shows that there is no possibility „To keep conceivable things secret“, because everyone „Thought process is repeatable“, so Dürrenmatt's own designs. Turning to the current discussion on the results of the studies of Ron Fouchier and Yoshihiro Kawaoka, this would mean that their results could sooner or later be reproduced elsewhere anyway. Since the supervirus is now already in the laboratory and the data from the relevant research could theoretically be made public, the only question is what humanity will do with these research results. Whether the pathogen is used more as a bioweapon or for the development of remedies lies outside the reach of individual researchers. However, when the results were announced, appropriate preparations could be made for bioterrorism in case of misuse of the virus.

Risk of a pandemic
The risk that the newly developed avian influenza viruses can form can only be guessed from the previous figures on avian influenza diseases. Indeed, WHO data only estimates 584 bird flu cases in humans worldwide (since 2003). But 345 patients died as a result of the infection, which corresponds to a death rate of about 60 percent. The avian influenza virus developed in the laboratory is as perilous as the conventional H5N1 viruses, but at the same time it causes high levels of infection, so that if it spreads, it could possibly cause millions of deaths worldwide. The pathogen has the potential for a pandemic of unprecedented proportions, the experts said. An abuse as a biological weapon would therefore probably catastrophic consequences. Thus, the dispute over the handling of the current research results is quite understandable, only a simple solution does not seem in sight.

Expert panel on biosecurity required
The aspects of biosafety must be reconsidered and reviewed by an independent expert panel, as well as the proposal of German virus researchers against the „Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“ (FAZ). According to this, a corresponding body of international, interdisciplinary and intellectual experts would have to discuss the aspects of biosafety separately. However, the censorship proposed by the NSABB rates the German virus researchers as short-sighted and too much concerned with safety. The body to be set up in the future „Global Health Security Policy Board“ should „not be driven by the interests of enforcing national security policy agendas“, but must „rather, open your eyes to find new answers to global questions“, said biosafety expert Petra Dieckmann and virologists Christian Drosten and Stephan Becker „FAZ“. (Fp)

Read on:
Bioterrorism with new supervirus from the laboratory

Picture: Rolf van Melis