New Scientist: Origin of US Anthrax attacks identified
Dunc, quoting Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist | 13.05.2002 12:29
New Scientist has published an article identifying the most likely source of the anthrax used in last year's "terrorist" mailings. Meanwhile, the BBC looks the other way...
From the New Scientist:
The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory.
The data released uses codenames for the reference strains against which the attack strain was compared. But New Scientist can reveal that the two reference strains that appear identical to the attack strain most likely originated at the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland.
The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.
Full article:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992265
Meanwhile, at the BBC:
US scientists are closer to knowing the sources of last year's anthrax attacks.
They have found a "fingerprint" series of genetic markers which can be used to tell the difference between very similar strains of the bacterium.
...
The identification of "signatures" means it could eventually be possible to work out where the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks came from.
Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1977000/1977894.stm
The DNA sequence of the anthrax sent through the US mail in 2001 has been revealed and confirms suspicions that the bacteria originally came from a US military laboratory.
The data released uses codenames for the reference strains against which the attack strain was compared. But New Scientist can reveal that the two reference strains that appear identical to the attack strain most likely originated at the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick (USAMRIID), Maryland.
The new work also shows that substantial genetic differences can emerge in two samples of an anthrax culture separated for only three years. This means the attacker's anthrax was not separated from its ancestors at USAMRIID for many generations.
Full article:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992265 Meanwhile, at the BBC:
US scientists are closer to knowing the sources of last year's anthrax attacks.
They have found a "fingerprint" series of genetic markers which can be used to tell the difference between very similar strains of the bacterium.
...
The identification of "signatures" means it could eventually be possible to work out where the anthrax used in the 2001 attacks came from.
Full article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1977000/1977894.stm
Dunc, quoting Debora MacKenzie, New Scientist
Homepage:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992265
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
new scientist, The Sun of scientific publis.
14.05.2002 11:01
magazines. If one or two "scientists" somewhere say
something spectacular, they'll put it in without looking
for more proofs, or even if the rest of the scientific
comunity disagree. (Of course they'll say that others
disagree, in small prints at the end of the article, but
they'll still make a front page out it).
gzzzt.
What's your point?
14.05.2002 12:10
Attack the message not the messenger.
snapp
Re: gzzzt
14.05.2002 16:18
Can you name ONE verified instance of the New Scientist behaving in the manner you describe, with references? Preferably an instance where the "rest of the scientific community" isn't one or two corporate-funded lobbyists.
Dunc
my point?
16.05.2002 11:02
message itself. I was warning readers that the new
scientist is not a scientific magazine, but a "scandal"
type of magazine, and should be read and trusted as
such, not as a scientfic magazine.
And I can easily proove my point.
Here are two recent cover stories:
(
13th of April:
COVER STORY: All the world's a net
What do the proteins in your body, the Internet, a cool
collection of atoms and sexual networks have in common? One
man thinks he has the answer, and it's going to transform
the way we view the world. David Cohen reports
4th of May:
COVER STORY: Blinding flash
It came from the far reaches of the cosmos and could
destroy everything we though we knew about how the universe
works. Michael Brooks fears for the future of physics.
So, in less than a month, they managed to change the way
we view the world TWICE ! WOW !
C'mon, just another one of those recent cover stories,
just to show that, like any other tabloid, they're doing
the extacy thing as well :
20th of April:
COVER STORY: Ecstasy on the brain
Some say it will kill you or poison your brain, others that
it's a safe enough high if you take precautions. Despite
official campaigns highlighting ecstasy's dangers, the drug
has never been more popular with clubbers. Are they
recklessly risking brain damage or worse, or sensibly
ignoring anti-drug propaganda. David Concar looks for the
facts behind the hype
gzzzt.