Wasn't it bealoid who wrote:
>assume a well funded group, with staff and equipment. (For example, look
>at someone like Aum Shin Ryko cult managing to aerosolise Anthrax into
air
>for 24 hours.)
>
>How hard is it for them to get a bunch of virus / bacteria / fungal
spores
>and 'gene hack' them into something really vicious - spreads like
measles,
>infects about 80% of people it contacts, kills 60% of infected within 4
>weeks, leaves the rest immune from future attacks, but with severly
>compromised breathing (eg COPD) and with other weaknesses.
>
>Obviously I don't want anything that can help real terrorists (I'm in the
>UK, and that stuff is illegal over here) but a list of dificulties
they're
>run into would be useful.
>
Genetic engineering is still pretty high tech. As well as having funds,
you also need several highly skilled people. It may well be harder to
find fanatically dedicated biochemists than it is to find fanatically
dedicated bomb makers.
You can't hide your objectives from your technical staff. It only needs
one of the lab techs to change his mind and decide that he's not OK with
helping to create something quite that nasty, and the whistle gets
blown.
We don't yet know enough to know precisely which bits of the measles
genome are related to the rate of infection and which bits are related
to its virulence. The only way to know if you're getting close to your
objective is to run tests. Testing with animals is going to be of
limited use because the rate of infection, mortality and incubation
periods of infectious diseases tends to be very specific to the host
species.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
|
