The Little Engines that Couldn’t Go to almost any search engine and -- quick -- tell us which are the paid listings. Hard to tell? That's the point. Librarians at the Gate E-books are killing the happy marriage of libraries and publishers. Libraries can now lend the same book to thousands of readers simultaneously. Publishers say it’s not fair. What’s the answer? Tell Us Everything You Know Or else… See More Columns

July 24, 2002 — Now there’s another kind of source code that many people would like to see purged from the Web. It’s the code for building viruses. Not computer viruses, but the real things, the living things, benign and malevolent.

Last month, researchers at the State University of New York at Stony Brook managed to construct a living polio virus using instructions that are available online and materials that can be bought through the mail. It’s no coincidence that the project was paid for by the same people who paid for the prototype of the Internet: the Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD has a long history of developing technologies with awesome technologies, that, like viruses, can be put to work for good or for ill.

Dr. Eckard Wimmer, a professor of molecular genetics and the project leader, told the New York Times that his team created the virus to send a warning that terrorists might be able to do the same thing. Wimmer told the Wall Street Journal that, in his opinion, “any well-trained graduate student” could do the same. And while it took the Stony Brook team three years to create the virus, Wimmer said he thought it could be done in as little as six months.

Whether or not the Pentagon really did fund the research for the purpose of sending a warning that terrorists could do the same thing, reports of the project’s success did just that, sparking two quite different debates. The first debate concerned the ethics, and the wisdom, of creating pathogenic viruses for any purpose. To discuss that, science reporters telephoned experts in the fields of virology, gene-sequencing and biotechnology.

Some, such as Dr. Steven Block of Stanford, pointed out that it would be much easier for terrorists to obtain a natural virus than to create one. Others believed such research projects were required to build the necessary defenses against bio-warfare. Craig Venter, founder and former head of Celera Genomics group and unofficial spokesperson for all things related to genetic code, told the Journal that the building of the virus was irresponsible, and could create an environment of fear in which legislators would feel a need to control basic research.

Which brings us to the second debate, the one about the ethics, and the wisdom, of publishing recipes for pathogenic viruses in a medium that is available to anyone with an AOL account. What do you think? Should recipes for dangerous life forms be published on the Internet?

	publishing virus data on the web... ivo August 1, 2002     Virus Ashok Kumar August 1, 2002   Build a Virus Darrell Hensley July 31, 2002     Free speech - polio virus JPCE July 31, 2002   Of Course Not! Dan Seats July 31, 2002     Publishing pathogenic virus infomration David Reneer July 31, 2002   Let's talk...... Brian July 31, 2002     Just like "WE" explained what it would take to take the WTC down, let's give more info for "THEM" to use Lisa Van Leuvan July 31, 2002   virus info. George July 31, 2002     stopping the flow k kahl July 30, 2002   See More Comments
	Your Name: Title: * Corp: * Email: * Subject: Your Comment: * Optional - we will neither sell nor display your personal information.