Many of you have probably heard about the announcement back in June which informed people that scientists' have decided to further research on a virus similar to the Spanish Flu. Briefly, the Spanish flu virus, similar to bird flu today, was estimated in killing 20-50 million people in 1918. So, what are scientists' reasons for the recreation of this virus? Of course I am not a scientist, but recreating a deadly and extinct virus seems to be completely horrifying and even morally wrong. Therefore, my question is how scientist made this decision. Is it possible to consider their chances of having had a consequentialist moral theory for this recreation? A plethora of articles published online would disagree, such as theguardian. However, in a society where we are not prepared for a pandemic as CNN stated I would hope that scientists are constantly trying to alleviate chances of having an outbreak that could kill millions once again. Obviously the fear of this virus "accidently" leaving the lab and actually infecting people is a concern. Yet, scientist reasoning for the necessity of this research is to be prepared for future purposes where a vaccine may be needed if another chaotic outbreak occurred. But who knows what will happen in the future? It is clear that in making this decision that scientists will not agree with Kant's Categorical Imperative theory; in this situation Kant would have said that acting on recreating this virus based solely off consequences of not doing so is an unreliable way to make a moral decision. Moreover, we can't assume or try to predict what may happen in the future to determine what's moral.
But since I am labeling these scientists as having a consequentialist theory, I will list reasons for their decision.
- Recreating this virus was said to be vital for determining the "public health risk" due to viruses that are currently in birds.
- Since influenza viruses move around throughout bird populations, the chance of strains mutating to infect humans occasionally happens. Ex. H5N1 bird flu
- The chance of improving vaccines if a pandemic occurred.
So does this reasoning morally support scientist decision? It depends on what your theoretical basics are. Having the ability to create a vaccine that could possibly improve vaccines and prevent a pandemic such as the Spanish Flu occurring again is vital. For this reasoning I will hold a consequentialist perspective.
I can see your point about wanting to avoid another outbreak of Spanish Flu, but as a science major I can assure you that doing research to develop a vaccine for this virus is very important and must be done. Certain extinct diseases may not actually be extinct. The reason scientists want to do research on this is to be able to genetically modify the viruses DNA in order for the body to develop antigens and antibodies that recognize future strains of the virus and allow cells to become immune to that pathogen. Of course this is easier said than done. Scientists who study deadly and contagious bacteria use extreme caution and only work in sterile environments that drastically if not wipeout the chance of infection. The reason research should be done is to possible prevent future modified out breaks of Spanish flu or any other mutated versions of the virus that can easily develop in the future. We have a vaccine for smallpox, which is supposed to be extinct virus, but nonetheless it is still made for bioweapons today. For that reason, we must have a vaccine in development for any dangerous disease or virus just so we can assure ourselves safety in the future. It is morally right to make decisions that could potentially safe millions of lives in the future rather than hoping it wont happen and not being prepared.
ReplyDelete