Summary of Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens

Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens

Step 1)
Paragraph 1: The author introduces us to the controversy in this case being the debate over the deliberate creation of super flu strains to study.
Paragraph 2: The author shows us both sides of the controversy the side that supports the creation of these modified super flu strains and the side that believes that it isn't worth the risk.
Paragraph 3: States that the National Academy of Sciences is watching over the debates in order to find a middle ground.
Paragraph 4:  The National Health organization is talking about how they are looking into the considerations and stances of both sides of the debate.
Paragraph 5: Introduces Dr. Atruro Casadevall's statement regarding how the main focus should be on the scientific questions.
Paragraph 6: Scientist have debates all the time according to Casadevall
Paragraph 7: Casadevall talks about how this is new territory and how the decisions need more debate than what is common in the scientific community.
Paragraph 8: Dr. David Relman is against the idea of creating new diseases.
Paragraph 9: Relman believes that the public should be included more in this discussion because potentially their lives could be at risk.
Paragraph 10: Work at a lab that created a lab-altered strain of the bird flu was halted for a couple of years after federal oversight increased but key questions were not answered.
Paragraph 11: Relman explains that we haven't answered the question whether or not these kind of experiments should be undertaken.
Paragraph 12: Relman created an organization that would tell researchers to stop experiments leading to a new pathogen till they understand the benefits and risks.
Paragraph 13: The statement above came out just as news of laboratory mishaps were being reported.
Paragraph 14: Refers to the Ebola outbreak to give an example of a pandemic.
Paragraph 15: This all led to a group that defends the creation of pathogens.
Paragraph 16: Paul Duprex wants to work with these diseases that has killed many people because it benefits people.
Paragraph 17: Duprex created a group called Scientists for science to back his stance on the study of dangerous pathogens. The group is composed of people who do work on these pathogens.
Paragraph 18: Scientists either have to join the discussion or not.
Paragraph 19: Both groups have websites each with over a hundred supporters.
Paragraph 20: The American Society for Microbiology has called on the National Academy of science to help resolve this issue and they have decided to look over agreements in the coming months.
Paragraph 21: Tim Donohue says that similar talks have happened in the past and that both sides need to understand the benefits and risks before coming to an agreement.

Step 2)
The main idea behind this article is that both sides are gaining support and that this debate on whether the creation of lethal pathogens should be allowed will b happening soon. In order for this to occur however both sides need to understand the risks and benefits to both the scientific community and the public.

Step 3)
The summary above meets al the requirements that were set.