Washington D.C. - August 25, 2008

Federal lawmakers have recently drafted a bill that would treat certain bacteria much like the bald eagle, gray wolf, and polar bear. They say endangered bacteria will benefit from strict laws that would severely limit human capacity to eliminate species that have been on the decline over the past century due to vaccination and other treatments.

Questions have been raised concerning which bacteria will be covered under this legislation. Some of the suggested species are Clostridium tetani (tetanus), Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria), Vibrio cholerae (cholera), Bordetella pertussis (whooping cough), and Bacillus anthracis (anthrax). These bacteria have been known to kill many millions of people but modern vaccines have helped to largely reduce the rate of infection and subsequent death.

Public sentiment has been divided on the issue. In a press release last week, one top congressional Democrat said, “All bacteria, whether deadly or not, deserve to be protected from human extermination campaigns.” The California representative went on to say, “Nature has created these pathogens and we have no right to eradicate these species from existence and deprive our children and grandchildren of the full experience life has to offer.”

A leading bacteriologist and National Academy of Sciences (NAS) member concurred.

“Bacteria provide scientists an opportunity to study genetics on a very short time scale,” said the 34-year widower whose wife succumbed to complications from tuberculosis in 1974.

“Although bacterial infections can cause very painful and miserable deaths, it is important to have as large a variety around as possible. We must be allowed to preserve our ability to make radical genetic alterations and conduct human and animal testing in a laboratory to determine whether or not we can create vaccines, and ultimately, if these vaccines will even work.”

Much of the controversy has been about how to handle bacteria that enters the human body. Many environmentalists believe that viruses and diseases that are caused by bacteria ought to fall under the same legal protection once it infects humans. Opponents of the bill, however, are shocked at the attempt to protect deadly pathogens.

“I can’t help but notice that humans have benefitted from stopping these diseases from forming and spreading, but I guess we should apologize to the bacteria for not being considerate of their purpose,” said an 83 year old farmer from Nebraska whose sister died from cholera in 1938, when she was only six.

A businesswoman from Chicago, who recently had a scare when a fellow airline passenger was discovered to have meningitis, doesn’t think bacteria are something worthy of preservation.

“Inoculation has done wonders for overall health and vitality. It would be a shame if we reverted back to days of high infant mortality and needless human suffering just to placate people with no common sense.”

Growing concern for human rights has been at the forefront of this issue. Conservative groups have complained that the government should not be allowed to harvest deadly organisms and feel that protecting them while in the body is a gross violation of individual liberty. The other side of the debate points to a swelling population as worrisome and considers overpopulation more hazardous than contracting viruses. Both sides have begun filing petitions to prevent and fast-track legislation, respectively.

Advocates for the new law are concerned that with all of the focus on global warming and polar bears, bacteria has been overlooked or completely ignored. An Oregon native thinks the government isn’t focusing on the entire problem:

“It isn’t just cute and cuddly animals that are entitled to live and be protected by us – it’s the dangerous viruses that cripple and kill people that make this planet wholesome and worth saving.”

Government health officials are split when it comes to protecting dangerous communicable pathogens. Many are convinced that these can be safely stored and studied in a controlled environment while others are skeptical about fully containing deadly microscopic organisms. However, all of them agree that security must be a priority. A government biologist and proponent for the new legislation believes security should be “extremely tight” in order to avoid having these lethal bacteria “fall into the wrong hands.” Fierce opponents of the bill think that by not saving or altering the pathogens in the first place, security risks could be avoided altogether.

With all of the controversy surrounding the topic, we can be certain about one thing: The fierce debate will continue into the New Year due to the November elections. Neither of the presidential candidates has taken a position on the legislation and Congress has vowed not to vote on it until after January. Politicians are not sure which position to take or which one will attract the most voters. They are undecided when it comes to either protecting bacteria or the citizens that will be voting for them this fall.

*For more articles by this author, click here.