Assessing risk and benefit "is not an exact science," Dr. Fouchier admitted at the press conference, but he stressed that "all 40 people who signed the moratorium letter in 2012 have now signed the letter to restart the work. All 40 feel that the benefits outweigh the risks." The experts clearly spelled this out in the letter’s final line: "Because the risk exists in nature that an H5N1 virus capable of transmission in mammals may emerge, the benefits of this work outweigh the risks," the letter concludes.
An editorial that ran in Nature (2013;493:451-2) on the new letter and the end of the research moratorium said that the risk and benefit issue had not yet been fully resolved, primarily because of the limited scope of the debate over the past year. "There remains a perception ... that the debate has taken place largely behind closed doors, and has been dominated by the scientists and research funders who have vested interests in the outcome," said the editorial. "An irreproachable, independent risk-benefit analysis of such research, perhaps convened by a body such as the World Health Organization (WHO), is still lacking."
The editorial also applauded the H5N1 research guidelines that the U.S. government is readying for approval. "The proposed framework for assessing H5N1 gain-of-function research, outlined by the U.S. National Institutes of Health at an international meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, in December, ... should serve as an important checklist. The criteria include sensible questions."
Dr. Fouchier, Dr. Kawaoka, and Dr. Webby had no disclosures.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler