Some time ago, Science brought to light the ethical issues raised by research on the H1N1 virus which gave rise to the recent scare of a new pandemic

Although the virus has ‘only’ taken 600 lives and killed mostly poultry, this is because it does not transmit itself well from human to human. A paper presented in a conference which took place in Malta in September 2011 however showed that there is still a danger on the potential for the virus to mutate and move from person to person.

The research done before this paper was presented raised ethical concerns, as unleashing such premature knowledge may not only give rise to unwarranted public concern but also the technology for future bioterrorists to create the virus. This made the scientific community to self-impose a moratorium on publishing the results of their experiments. The US national Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity had asked the same Science journal not to publish the study. The journal agreed in principle. Later, however, the moratorium was removed and the paper published. It was this paper which was presented in Malta by the leader of the laboratory, virologist Ron Fouchier, where the study took place.

Therefore, it is no surprise that the Malta paper triggered wide media coverage (ironically not locally). It was the second paper, according to Science, showing the pandemic potential of this avian virus. While most studies on viruses do so by inducing mutations (and studying them) to see whether the H1N1 can become easily transmissible between humans, Fouchier had what he called a ‘stupid’ method (by which he meant ‘so simple’ and used an older form of method. He inoculated hosts (ferrets) by directly inoculating samples into one ferret which were taken from nasal samples of another. The end result was a virus that could move through air.

It was in Malta that he called the method stupid, which was interpreted, according to Science, as meaning that he regretted finding this mutation because of its potential. He simply meant that it was so simple – many do use ‘stupid’ to mean simple.

The moratorium has now moved to the point where it may interfere with scientific understanding of the natural history of the bug. It means however that if governments give in to media frenzy and ‘doomsday’ viruses, funding for this important research will stop. But why do we need this research anyway. Research which understands how the virus can mutate from its present form into a form which transmits itself from one person to another means that should this happen we already understand its nature and therefore how to control it. As regard to bioterrorists, these will have to make a balance of whether it is worth their while, once we have the knowledge to defend ourselves.

Government moratoria can be more dangerous as it is more difficult to lift them, which is why the science community self-imposed it. Should government stop funding such research, the end result could be that bioterrorists will find funding to do it themselves and we are left helpless without the necessary science to foresee and understand the natural history of these viruses and the diseases they cause. Better to pre-empt biosecurity and be one step ahead.

Of course, the funders and the science communities will have to agree on which paths, of the many that exist, will be taken in studying the virus. In reality, it takes quite a number of mutations to occur before the virus in the present form becomes ‘airborne’ – the term used to indicate that it can be transmitted through coughs and sneezes. In the race to publish the study, Fouchier’s team went ahead as the result was important and they did not want to miss the boat to other scientists working in the field, knowing therefore that additional experiments need to be done. Rightly so, due to the media scaremongering and extrapolations, such as the virus being highly lethal, Fouchier declines to reveal these experiments to the media before publishing them through normal channels. This self-moratorium and non-seeking of publicity is very commendable in a science world where many seek to become prima donnas.

Pierre Mallia is Chairman of the Health Ethics Committee and Ethics Adviser to the Medical Council of Malta. He is also former president of the Malta College of Family Doctors (The article is only his personal view and not that of the committees or institutions he represents)