rejected. a Dutch court rejected a challenge to the rules which require researchers to obtain an export permit before sending documents on the H5N1 avian influenza ( above ) to American magazine science .
National Institutes of Health
virologist Ron Fouchier suffered a loss of a legal battle with the Dutch government on the publication of his controversial research on H5N1 . On Friday, a Dutch district court ruled that the government was right to ask Fouchier to obtain an export license before sending two documents hotly debated for publication. The decision, published yesterday (Dutch), could provide new dams for research Fouchier in the future.
The issue is hotly debated document Fouchier of showing that some mutations may H5N1, a virus that normally infects birds, transmitted through the air between ferrets, which was published in science in June 2012. the fight also involved a companion paper published in the same issue in which Fouchier and others have tried to assess the likelihood that these viruses arise spontaneously in nature.
The Dutch government considered sending the documents to science a form of "export" and Fouchier necessary to formally ask the first official authorization. In doing so, the government has correctly interpreted E.Ü. regulations aimed at preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the technology called "dual-use" which could be used for good or evil, the court of Haarlem said.
The decision means that the future studies- H5N1 transmissibility Fouchier which resumed after a worldwide moratorium ended in January-would require an official stamp of approval as well. The same could be true for similar studies involving H7N9, a strain that emerged in China this spring, because the government could consider studies that give the virus to new capabilities as providing results dual use.
Fouchier was available for comment today, but he has said in previous interviews that the Dutch government infringes on academic freedom and he and other scientists in the Netherlands putting at a disadvantage compared with scientists from other countries.
Working H5N1 Fouchier triggered an outcry around the world at the end of 2011, with a similar study by Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin, Madison and the University of Tokyo, when the US National science Advisory Board for biosecurity (NSABB) ruled that he should not be released without hitting the most sensitive details. In the wrong hands, the reasoned NSABB, studies could be used to turn H5N1 into a bioweapon. The board reversed that decision in March 2012 and gave the papers a green light.
But while Kawaoka paper was published online in Nature in early May 2012, the study Fouchier was retained longer because of the position of the Dutch government.
Fouchier requested an export license subject and received April 27, 2012, to allow the paper to finally be published. But Erasmus MC has also filed an appeal against the decision of the Government; when the government rejected, he took the matter to the District Court.
The government based its decision on E.Ü. regulations issued in 09 aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. These rules impose limits on exports, trade and transfer of a range of materials, including the dangerous flu virus and are also valid for the technical expertise that could be used to make such weapons .
Erasmus MC and Fouchier argued that the rules do not apply to paper Fouchier as an annex of the document carves exceptions for "basic scientific research" and for the information already "in the public domain . "ferrets studies were fundamental scientific research, counsel for Fouchier argued, because researchers have sought to better understand the transmissibility of mammal a strain of influenza; Meanwhile, the methods used in study to generate mutants have been described previously and were well known.
the court, which heard arguments in the case on August 29, do not buy this line of reasoning. Make H5N1 airborne was not only basic research, but was a "practical purpose," the judges said, and while the methods previously described, the researchers had to avoid hollowing out "took action and made choices that led to completely new results." the regulations, any exception "must be interpreted strictly," the court said, adding that he is not the researchers to decide if their work is basic research.
the court recognized that its decision could result in delays in the dissemination of scientific information, but said that "disadvantage" is outweighed by the importance of the prevention of proliferation.
Fouchier and Erasmus MC have six weeks to take their case to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal.
0 Komentar