Ebola mutagenicity; Contingency planning

[Lyle Najita]

In bionet.virology nanomius at netcom.com (Albert Nanomius) said: 
 
>Aaron-- I saw that too about Ebola being RNA. However it seemed to imply
that  
>it was unusual in being a "negative sense" RNA virus instead of a
"positive  
>sense". I wonder if any studies have been done about the virulence and  
>mutability of one vs. the other. 
> 
Although I can't cite any relevant papers for you, I would guess that the
error rate of the polymerases would be roughly the same (within an order of
magnitude; ie - ~one in ten thousand to ~one in one thousand vs
error-correcting DNA polymerases with an error rate of ~ one in one
million) 
 
>It appears that the newspaper account I read may have been totally
incorrect in  
>calling the virus DNA based. 
> 
Yes, but this isn't the first time the media has published inaccurate data.
I've been groaning for three months while NPR talks about "flesh-eating
Strep A virus". 
 
>A note to the people who have flamed me in email: unless you can offer  
>information to rebut me, I don't give the slightest damn that you don't
think I  
>should be posting here. I also think that if you are a scientist, it is
your  
>public duty to be graceful to the neophytes that are showing up on your  
>doorstep. I have been following the "snobbish, pompous elitist" thing a
bit and  
>find it utterly amusing. it appears there was not an Ebola FAQ until the
most  
>recent outbreak, and now the only one written is by an "outsider" (a
software  
>engineer, whom I commend). Mr. Pompous Scientists, if you had already
written a  
>FAQ and had a good Ebola site ready, or put one together yourselves, you
would  
>be far better equipped to deal with this mass exodus of humanity into your
 
>realm here. 
> 
I for one, could give a damn whether you post here or anywhere else on the
net, but do have the courtesy of lurking in the group before flying in and
frying your spam. 
 
>to all the scientists who are funded with taxpayer money here-- get your
act  
>together. don't act like such snobs that are not willing to discuss their 

>specialty with interested laymen, and think that you cannot even talk
about a  
>topic until you have gone to Grad school and gotten  a PhD.  
> 
Yeah, I'm a scientist. Yeah, your tax dollars pay my $27K/year for which I
am eternally grateful. At this rate I should only be $4000 in debt (not
counting student loans, which are currently being paid off) by the time I
leave NYC. But it is my sweat and blood that goes into my research - not
yours. When you do us the courtesy of wanting to know what we do for your
tax dollars, I'll be there to explain it. I'm just tired of being on the
short end of the stick, the "why should we pay for all this science that
doesn't DO ANYTHING" stick. When people start taking an interest in basic
science, then I'll be more than happy to try to explain it. I've had great
conversations with non-scientists about HIV, hepatitis delta virus (which I
work on), poliovirus (work on as a grad student), and other non-trendy bits
of info that were heartily welcomed. I've also dealt with people who think
that "we" have had the cure for cancer for years and don't want to release
it because we'll lose our research money and those are the people I'm tired
of dealing with. We've got kids who can spout off every song on every album
of certain pop groups, stats on a variety of sports figures, but hey, talk
biology, chemistry or physics? No way. Who'd they "learn" this attitude
from? Parents who are more interested in soaps, OJ, the market. 
 
>instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to educate the public, I
see  
>nothing but a bunch of illtempered grouchy gripes from what appear to be  
>ingrateful scientists about the Hot Zone or Richard Preston or whatever.
if you  
>have a problem with something written in a newspaper or book, CORRECT IT.
WRITE  
>AN ESSAY THAT DEBUNKS THE FALSEHOODS IT STATES. if you can't do that,
YOU'RE  
>NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. 
> 
Me personally, I liked the Hot Zone and The Coming Plague. I thought the
Hot Zone was a bit overdramatized but it got a point across if people were
willing to think about it long enough. We don't know how many of these
things are out there, why not learn about them? Things are not scary once
we can understand them, you respect it, but no longer fear it. As for me, I
work in the lab an average of 10-14 hours a day. Lately I've started taking
weekends off so I can stay married. You don't mind if I can't find the time
to write a book, since I still have to find the time to wade through a
dozen various journals a month, renew grants, and try to stay healthy. 
 
>so, have I pretty much offended virtually everyone here yet? 
> 
Yeah, good job, this should really endear you to everyone you so dearly
want to preach to and believe that because you pay some tax money we should
take so much of our time to 'splain to you some facts you should have taken
in high school or freshman biology. This group is viewed as a forum to
discuss science by a few of us. 
 
Lyle Najita 
najital at rockvax.rockefeller.edu - just so you know where to aim that
flamethrower.