- http://184.73.192.197/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/news/jun2112fouchier.html
- http://184.73.192.197/cidrap/content/bt/bioprep/news/jun2112dualuse.html
Provide names of other journalists involved.
Lisa Schnirring, staff writer, wrote a sidebar article on the effects of this study on federal and international policies regarding potentially dangerous life sciences research that could be use for good or bad purposes. Jim Wappes, editorial director, provided direction and edited both stories.
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
21-Jun-12
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
In late 2011, two studies involving lab-mutated versions of the deadly H5N1 avian flu virus captured global notoriety more for their potential threat than for their perceived benefit. Researchers had for the first time developed H5N1 strains that proved readily transmissible in mammals, a worrisome scenario. In an unprecedented move, a US federal advisory board blocked publication of the studies’ findings in part over bioterror concerns, but later relented. The second, more controversial study produced viruses that not only spread through the air but proved deadly to lab ferrets. CIDRAP News sought to not simply clarify study details, but to plumb the greater issues of societal benefits and risks — as well as ramifications for similar research. A sidebar further delves into the future of policies surrounding such potentially dangerous studies, an issue that is yet evolving.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Primary sources were the study in question, on lab-modified H5N1 viruses, as well as an accompanying modeling study that sought to quantify risks of such viruses occurring in nature and a similar mamallian-transmissible H5N1 avian flu study published the previous month in a separate journal. Extensive background research was required on both H5N1 research and on policies regarding dual-use research of concern, or DURC (meaning it can be used for good or bad purposes). The DURC sidebar explored three perspective pieces in the same issue of the journal that addressed policy and ongoing-research concerns. No FOI requests were required.
Explain types of human sources used.
Human sources ranged from the study authors to a high-ranking US government official in charge of funding and overseeing such research to biosecurity and influenza experts.
Results:
CIDRAP News provided in-depth evidence-based information on a complex issue of huge public health import not published anywhere else.
Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No follow-up.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Allocate a lot of time for researching a multifaceted, complex topic. Sources appreciated well-informed questions.