Should we completely eradicate a disease from existence or preserve it for research purposes?
Uber Facts posted an intriguing tweet about whether to eradicate a disease completely or preserve it for research purposes following the eradication of Smallpox.
This brings up an important debate that has implications for the field of health and wellness.
After the eradication of Smallpox, the World Health Organization debated whether to destroy the last known samples of the virus
— UberFacts (@UberFacts) May 14, 2023
The question remains: Should we completely erase a disease from existence or keep it for future study?
Should we completely eradicate a disease from existence or preserve it for research purposes?
The eradication of diseases has been one of the most significant achievements in the field of healthcare.
Since the invention of vaccines, many once-deadly diseases have been eradicated worldwide. To date, only two diseases have been officially eradicated: Smallpox and Rinderpest.
It is important to note that the WHO has recommended that all remaining stocks of the smallpox virus be destroyed.
However, the decision to destroy the remaining samples of the virus is a complex one that requires careful consideration of the potential benefits and risks of keeping or destroying the virus.
When it comes to the preservation of potentially deadly samples of a virus, many experts have differing opinions about the benefits and risks associated with such actions.
However, some scientists argue that preserving samples for future research purposes can prove beneficial in controlling future outbreaks or developing new treatments.
For example, research on the 1918 influenza virus, which caused a global pandemic, helped scientists better understand the virus and its potential resurgence.
Similarly, the study of the Sars-CoV-1 virus led to the development of the MERS-CoV vaccine, which could potentially protect against future coronavirus outbreaks.
Further, a recent study conducted by the National Biosafety Committee in China suggests that preserving samples of a virus for research purposes is indeed useful.
The study examined how researchers used samples of various viruses, including Ebola, Zika, and Sars-CoV-2, to develop treatments and vaccines for different diseases.
However, opponents of the practice argue that keeping potentially deadly samples can pose serious risks, particularly if the samples fall into the wrong hands or escape from a laboratory. The 1978 outbreak of Smallpox – one of the deadliest viruses in human history – which occurred after a release of the samples from a laboratory in the UK, serves as a cautionary tale.
Smallpox
Smallpox was a deadly disease that caused disfiguring scars and blindness and killed millions of people every year.
Thanks to the vaccine discovered by Edward Jenner in 1796 and the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO), the last known case of Smallpox was recorded in 1977.
Following the eradication of the disease, the WHO debated whether or not to destroy the last known samples of the smallpox virus. According to the WHO, the smallpox vaccine prevented an estimated 5 million deaths every year.
Polio
Polio is a highly infectious disease that can cause paralysis and even death. The disease has been eradicated in most parts of the world. According to the WHO, the number of polio cases has decreased by 99% since 1988. In 2019, there were only 175 reported cases of polio worldwide.
However, there are still reports of cases found in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Although polio has been eradicated in most parts of the world, there are still samples of the virus available in laboratories. These samples are used for research purposes to develop new vaccines and treatments for the disease.
Measles
Measles is a highly contagious disease that can cause severe complications, including pneumonia and brain damage. The disease affected 30 million people globally before the discovery of its vaccine. The vaccine was introduced in 1963, and the number of cases fell by 80%, saving millions of lives each year.
Rubella
Rubella, also known as German measles, can cause birth defects if a pregnant woman contracts the disease. The rubella vaccine has been successful in controlling the disease. According to the WHO, the number of rubella cases has decreased by 97% since 2000.
Mumps
Mumps is a viral disease that can cause swelling of the salivary glands, fever, and headache. According to the WHO, the number of mumps cases has decreased by 99% since the introduction of the vaccine.
TB
Another deadly disease, tuberculosis, was declared a global emergency by the WHO in 1993, with a staggering 9 million recorded cases. Through the combined efforts of the WHO and the government and health organisations of various countries, the number of tuberculosis cases declined by approximately 37% between 2000 to 2020.
Though we may question the preservation of these diseases for future research, it is essential to understand that the eradication of diseases has had significant impacts on global healthcare.
Read the latest issue of IOL Health digital magazine here.