Chris Phoenix says he found a dangerous area of biotech research, hopefully it is no big deal.

The other day a conversation with John Hunt reminded me of an idea we’ve visited before: that the only way that the world at large will take the biotech risk seriously is if an exceptionally virulent engineered pathogen is released in a controlled space, like a level 4 containment facility, with the intention of killing a specific test species.

This idea sounds sort of bad because it involves killing animals (which is usually a bad idea, as Joshua Greene would say: “boo to killing!”), but perhaps mice would do. If people cared about mice, we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of a billion cats.

More generally, the point here is not the specific idea, but just to come up with ideas, because time is elapsing and we aren’t getting any wiser or more compassionate, just more powerful. Synthetic biology is receiving a tremendous amount of scientific attention and research money with zero oversight. Please: regulate. I have semi-Luddite tendencies when it comes to developing technologies that are potentially omnicidal, even if the risk is relatively low. That puts me into direct conflict with those who want no controls on technological development.

Meanwhile, the environmentalist crowd might complain at the idea of “sinking so low” as to create a deadly microbe which may have some chance, however small, of escaping its containment unit. However, I’d say that the risk is worth it. Biodefense research labs are already operating with thousands of scientists over decades of research with thousands of deadly pathogens and security is compromised only extremely rarely. (Does anyone know of such incidents? Seems like something that would have happened in the Soviet Union at least a few times, in fact I recall that there is an abandoned facility right now somewhere in Siberia.) If the skeptics are right, the microbe won’t be very successful anyway, but if the skeptics are wrong, then that information would be crucial to know so we could put more resources into biodefense against novel arbitrary pathogens.

This experiment can please both the skeptics and the the “doomsayers” (I prefer to call myself “extinction risk concerned”). The skeptics will either see the failure of the engineered pathogen to successfully infect and kill all animals in the chamber, or the success. (Obviously.) If they see failure, their position will get some degree of positive evidence in its favor, depending on the exact circumstances. If they see success, the evidence will be against them. Similarly, the “worriers” can be assuaged by repeated failures in the experiment or strengthen their concern if the experiment kills most/all animals in the chamber.

Really, this does make me squirmy, because I’m mostly against killing animals for research. Perhaps we could start the experiment with worms, but unfortunately the publicity element is all-important and worms would not have the proper evidence-generating effect.

This all goes back to that principle that eventually (especially on matters of controversy) you have to design an experiment of some kind that produces evidence about something, whatever that may be. (The process of subsequent analysis perpetually continues.) Saying Professor Y said one thing and Dr. Z said another endlessly is ultimately just a recycling of old information and opinions, though some Professors may have large lists of references to prop up their positions. Historically, we know experiments settle scientific questions better.

So, if someone wants to step up to the plate and fund this idea, just contact me and I’ll look at my network of contacts to see if there’s anyone interested in actually doing it, and how difficult the ethical approval process would be. (Or just pick it up and run with it yourself.) Does anyone know if any school in the West would even allow this sort of thing? I talked to some official who was in charge of ethical screening for research projects at a university sometime last year and we had some fun conversation, but I hadn’t thought of this idea yet, so I didn’t bring it up.

“Massacring worm cities with bio-engineered pathogens: It seemed like a good idea at the time!”