Blindness. Disfigurement. Death. These are the three possible results of contracting smallpox, an ailment cause by variola, a virus which caused 2 million deaths annually in 1967 (Ragavan, et al, 10). In 1967, the World Health Organization began a campaign to eradicate smallpox virus, a drive that was successful over a thirteen year period – except for stocks of the virus kept in both Russian and U.S. laboratories. A debate erupted that has been ongoing among many countries, international agencies like WHO, and even President Clinton who recently signed a memo calling for “preservation of variola” in high-security labs (Marshall 718).
Who would want to keep living stocks of variola virus and why? While most countries are in favor of destroying the virus, some, like the U.S., have retracted their positions because of the threat of bio-terrorism. Those who wish to preserve the live variola stocks in laboratories argue they are needed to create vaccines against a possible terrorist attack using the smallpox virus. Others, like WHO and health researcher D. A. Henderson of the Johns Hopkins University, argue that the virus is “such a horrific disease that its source should be obliterated-totally and permanently” (Marshall 718). This analysis will present the arguments of each side of this debate, those who are in favor of stockpiling live variola virus in laboratories and those who favor complete and total destruction of the virus. A conclusion will summarize these arguments and determine from the evidence which side has made a better case for their position.
Those who argue in favor of keeping live stocks of variola virus argue their case based on the threat of terrorism and the high-security of laboratories where the stores of variola are housed. Both Russia and the U.S. are in favor of keeping such stock, arguing they are necessary for bio-terrorism countermeasures and their potential research value in terms o...