Read the following, available in the Reserves section of Shields Library or in my office (Plant Environmental Sciences 1312), by next week. Estimated reading time (in a quiet place without interruptions): 25 minutes, but allow at least an hour so you have time to think about what you read and to answer the questions below.

• YS86126. Excerpt from "The Tide Turners", a novel about an unusual form of "bioterrorism" (if that's the right word; well, it scared me) that could be especially difficult to defend against, for reasons to be discussed.
• YS86167. "Rodent plagues, immunocontraception, and the mousepox virus." Only the first paragraph is assigned.
• YS86336.  Science panel urges review of research terrorists could use.  This group was motivated by research discussed in the previous paper.
  
• YS86128. "Fatal attraction in rats." Only the abstract is assigned.
• YS86134. "Biological attack on agriculture: low-tech, high-impact terrorism"  I have crossed out some sections that aren't assigned.  The first author is a UC Davis Lecturer. I invited him to give a guest lecture, but he's teaching at the our Washington DC Center this quarter.
  

1) What kind of replicator were the characters in "Tide Turners" planning to use for their scheme?

2) The immunocontraception scheme discussed in the Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE) paper was tried because their first attempt worked on some mouse genotypes but not others. What happened with their "improved" method?

3) What agency organized the science panel that is recommending restrictions on research that might be useful to terrorists?

4) What effects did the parasite, Toxoplasma gondii (which also infects humans) have on rats?

5) The US and the UN have considered the deliberate release of pathogens. To do what?

Questions to think about (to be discussed in class)

• Does anyone think any variant of the scheme discussed in Tide Turners might be a good idea, under some conceivable circumstances? Are there several different aspects of their plan that some people ("all right-thinking people" or "a few crackpots") might object to? What if those aspects were changed? For example, what if the intended target were mosquitoes, rather than humans? And so on…
• Does the "fatal attraction" article give us anything new to worry about?
• How likely do you think it is that there might be some group/organization/government with both the expertise and the willingness to spread microbes like those discussed in this week's reading? What possible unintended effects might happen? Are possible perpetrators likely to be deterred by the risks of such unintended effects?
• What should we (the US, the UN, etc.) consider doing to deter anyone from developing and releasing such dangerous microbes?