In a recent article published on Shots, the National Public Radio Health Blog, influenza researchers from around the world plan to reconvene after halting research on mutant bird flu viruses. The meeting will focus on deciding whether or not this research should recommence. With the potential of this bird flu causing a pandemic in humans, some people are arguing that the public should have more say in whether the research should start back up.
I sat down with Toby L. Schonfeld, Director of the Master of Arts in Bioethics Program at the Center for Ethics, to investigate this issue further. In response to the big question this article presents, whether or not research with these mutant strands of the flu should continue, Schonfeld pointed out a beneficial outcome of continuing research. "Public health scholars were saying an influenza epidemic is certain within the next few years but how severe it will be is unknown," explained Schonfeld. "There are some things that we can learn from this research that can help us understand other aspects or other strands of the flu virus."
Researchers must also keep the public -all of those who will be affected by the outcome of whatever choice they make. Informing the public on this issue is vital but whether or not they should be included in discussions amongst the scientific community remains an unresolved issue. While some argued that the public is not educated on the topic enough to comment on the matter, the opposition claimed that scientists and researchers are not the only people affected by the decision of this dilemma. To this Schonfeld responded, "The issue is not about intelligence, it's about context. The challenge with something like this is not that the members of the public won't have an opinion about it, or that the scientists are doing something that will affect all of us. The challenge with the public commenting on the early stages of research is that the public may not have a full understanding of the context in which it occurs."
However, generating dialogue about the concerns individuals have regarding the research of the flu virus is essential. "I think the call for robust conversation is the right thing to do," Schonfeld added. "I think to have it be a multidisciplinary conversation is crucial as well. Public health workers, researchers, as well as clinicians who will potentially be treating people must be involved in the discussion. In order to make a decision about this kind of research, you need a multiplicity of actors."
Although this type of research should be addressed on an international level, research conducted in regions of the world that are less stable could compromise the safety of people all over the world. Schonfeld recognizes that changes occurring globally make it harder to know which regimes are unstable and which are not. While there are certainly considerations there, she finds that there are other components of this issue that take precedence. "One of the values that comes into conflict when we think about public health policy is transparency when we are allocating resources or restricting peoples' liberties," explained Schonfeld. "It has to be transparent because those sort of decisions infringe on liberty rights of those individuals. There has to be communication about those values made publicly. And there's value in that. But it's not clear that same thing is true for the current stage of influenza research."
Next year the World Health Organization will conduct an open meeting to further discuss some of these issues concerning the research of the flu virus.
read more.....NPR - Bird Flu Researchers To Meet About Research Moratorium
