ernest@uunet.UU.NET (Ernest Retzel (1535 49118)) (01/25/91)
I am going to break my own rule about posting to the net. While I scan the net frequently, I generally respond directly to the posters; I cannot necessarily keep up a net 'thread' in a timely fashion. Sometimes the respondents incorporate my mail in a post; more frequently, they prefer their prejudices. The recent post regarding HIV as a putative "genetic weapon" obligates me to respond. I will not deal with the documentation, as this has been described previously. All I will say is that the concept that it became part of a vaccination program is basically ridiculous, and that it is "in the drugs" on the street, as opposed to the paraphernalia of drug users being contaminated, is equally or more absurd. Basically, the science of molecular biology did not exist as such in 1969. Let me qualify that: a science called that did exist, and at roughly that time I was employed in a laboratory which was called a Molecular Biology Lab; however, what we could *DO* as molecular biologists in the early 1970s was extraordinarily little. Molecular biology as it exists *today* could not be used to design such an entity de novo. While we know an incredible amount about HIV, particularly considering the time frame, we still do not fully understand the interactions of molecules that, for example, keep the virus in a latent state. We are not even sure if we know about *all* of them, let along how they might interact with the myriad of cellular factors that are available to it. That is not a digression, but an explanation of the first thing necessary to design any bio-entity: intimate and complete knowledge of exactly what you are designing. Second, you need a sequence to provide the genetic information to implement that design; the possibility of determining a DNA sequence did not exist on any but the most academic scale until 1977 [a discovery which earned the Nobel prize for the discoverers]. By way of example, the sequence of the genome of HIV was not determined completely until 1984, and was considered to be a feat in the amount of time they worked on it. Sequencing is not the same as design; the latter has not been accomplished for any but the most trivial things even now. Things can be *changed,* but not designed; even the changes are difficult and generally are either trivial or random. And lastly, you need some cloning vehicle, preferably easily manipulable. Natural "vectors" [specifically, antibiotic resistance plasmids] were just beginning to be described in the most basic forms [read: unusable for such a task] in 1972. From here, I can hear the mumbling, "Yes, but is it not possible..." The answer is a simple "No." There was no conspiracy. Conspiracy requires knowledge, and there was no knowledge to conspire with. Ernest F. Retzel, Ph.D. Dept. of Microbiology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN ernest@lenti.med.umn.edu
ernest@uunet.UU.NET (Ernest Retzel (1535 49118)) (01/28/91)
In repsonse to a recent post of mine, one poster writes in part: > There seems to be a common theme in the history of development of things: > once something thought "impossible" has been demonstrated to be feasible, > no matter what it was, everyone else seems able to do it, even /s the > "inside information". I think this line of reasoning could also apply to > AIDS. i.e. I find it hard to believe some fiendish scientist(s) somehow > devised this bug, yet the rest of the talent in the world cannot undo it. > I just happened to think of an example to my assertion: nuclear fission, > atomic weapons, etc. It was theorized, but no one could make it work. Once > it was proven and announced, others followed suit, armed only /c the knowledge > it COULD be done. While not 'a posteriori' evidence, I think the trend > is concrete enough to continue to this day. What I was trying to point out was that the tools simply were not there in the year the document asserted this happened, nor are they now; they are getting there, for exactly the reasons that you pointed out--things are possible, and we will make them work. However, the design of a novel bio-entity so unlike anything we know about is nowhere near. What we do now is mimic and change existing things, and don't do a very good job of that. The problem with the Manhattan Project comparison is that there *was* all that theory already; it did not have to be created first. Add to that the fact that that Project brought together a team of first-rate nuclear physicists, primarily from academia, and basically the best of the scientific world at that time. That is not the same as trying to postulate a secret lab of maladjusted biologists who could be so insightful as to create/disseminate something that had no vaccine and no cure. Ernest F. Retzel Dept. of Microbiology University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN ernest@lenti.med.umn.edu