Should the US and Russia destroy their smallpox stocks?

[dipsydoodle]

Defeating smallpox has been labelled as one of science's greatest success stories.

The disease once killed 30% of those infected, but after a global vaccination campaign it was declared eradicated in 1980.

However the variola virus, which causes the infection, is not gone. It exists in two laboratories, one in the US and the other in Russia. The question is about to be asked, once again: should they kill their stocks?

The World Health Organization (WHO) will come to a decision at the 64th World Health Assembly this week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13360794

[HopeHoops]

1. That's a tough call. Without it, emergency research would be difficult or impossible.

Sure, it was declared eradicated. Has it been? Lack of identified cases is strong but not conclusive evidence. Should an outbreak occur, it may be necessary to take samples from new infections and compare them to the existing stocks to see what if any mutations have occurred. On the other hand, what if the existing stocks were accidentally released? That's just not an easy decision.

[negativenihil]

2. this is a good point

Sure we may "feel" better about these samples being destroyed - but you're right - it might end up doing us more harm by limiting future research in case of an outbreak.

[AngryAmish]

3. no.

[dembotoz]

4. no

once a sample of genetic diversity is gone-it is gone forever.
Some time we many need it for research, maybe something similar will show up.
Life is filled with woulda, shoulda, coulda

[exboyfil]

5. Would the genetic code for this virus

be considered as big a secret as the designs for a fusion bomb? Could the samples be destroyed after the virus is decoded?

[kestrel91316]

6. Book about smallpox and this dilemma: The Demon in the Freezer.

[damntexdem]

7. Yes. Despite possible downsides, it is too dangerous to be left alive in even two labs.

Downsides:
1) loss of ability to research it, should some variant reappear in the world; and
2) the need to trust that two governments, including their agents, will actually destroy it, trusting that the other will also do so; and
3) there is the possibility that strains were taken from said labs, and that experts who worked on it still exist, so that some other government or party could develop it further and use it as a weapon.

Overriding upsides:
1) the inoculation does exist, so could be used should smallpox somehow reappear;
2) it was wiped out of human society in the wild nearly 40 years ago and has not reappeared in the wild;
3) while it remains in government labs, there remains a likelihood that further weapons research will be done on it; and
4) over 20 years have gone by since the most-likely time (the fall of the USSR) that the virus or experts on it could have gone elsewhere, but no use has occurred despite the widespread terrorism inflicted on the world since.

So, I say destroy the virus; but also produce much more of the (vaccinia) vaccine just in case.