[flipp]

Isn't there way more deadly and virulent stuff locked up in labs all over the world, like ebola and anthrax and VX? And we don't know what medical discoveries smallpox might yield decades down the road. Let's not destroy anything.

[nagrom]

Ebola's not that deadly, because it kills people too quickly and the transmission process is difficult. It's easily quarantined and therefore deadly to individuals, but not to populations. Smallpox is almost the opposite - 66% of victims survive, but it spreads very easily.

Anthrax is naturally-occurring, I think and also not that deadly in the scheme of things - it doesn't spread very easily from infected to non-infected without being weaponized.

[corin_]

Your point is completely valid, but I have to point out how wonderful what you said sounds out of context.

  Ebola's not that deadly, because it kills people too quickly

[djacobs]

It's a shame that anthrax gets so much press, simply because of the (small) potential for weaponization. In spite of the fact that it doesn't easily spread between people. I've heard it's almost impossible to get approved to work with it, and when you do, every move you make is scrutinized.

[araneae]

Yes, but those things exist in the wild, not just in the laboratory.