Robert Webster: Scientist or Alarmist? : Melbourne Indymedia

In a recent ABC TV interview Dr.R.Webster (RW) gave his thoughts about the threat of bird flu. In one statement he put forward the possibility that "it's about even odds that there will be a bird flu pandemic and that 50% of humans will die". How are we to take this statement? Past evidence of previous pandemics (including all diseases) shows that even the worst pandemic only killed less than 1% of the human population. Thus the statement is an exaggeration. I suggest that RW take a refresher course in statistical modelling.

RW works at a children's hospital in Memphis, Tennessee where children without medical insurance "are not denied treatment". This is more a comment on the American health system than the generosity of the hospital. As well, RW's research has the purpose of preventing "catastrophic consequences of diseases on children". I am not doubting RW's good intentions, but do his comments reflect the truth and do they merit him being called a leading researcher?

Scientific American has rewarded RW by voting him one of the leading 50 researchers. The prestigious magazine has recently published an interview with RW. When RW appears at conferences there is "a respectful silence" if he walks past. His colleagues are unaminous in their approval of his status. But all this is praise from the converted. From people all wanting to win research grants and to gain invitations to speak at each other's institutions. If you read the Smithsonian article you will come across the comment (not made by RW, I hope) that AIDS was TRANSMITTED to humans by apes. Is this scientifically correct. Only under a very elaborate, and semantically inaccurate, interpretation of transmission. The verb implies direct exchange but there were a number of factors which combined to allow AIDS to pass to and between humans (eating of raw monkey flesh and an unhygenic immunization program in central Africa = the hypothesis).

And the message is that H5N1 is also, or will be, transmitted to humans. RW describes wild birds as being a "reservoir" of influenza strains. Not a scientifically acceptable description. It implies already that they have excessive quantities of them (so a quantitative description is required). Also the term implies that the strains are waiting, like the contents of a reservoir, to be passed on. But viruses are an inextricable part of all cellular life, for millions of years they evolved alongside the cell's organelles and exist as "reservoirs" in all animals.

The statement also implies that perhaps wild birds are unhealthy. But all of natural history shows that birds are an extemely successful animal group. Even today there are parts of the world where millions of birds can be seen nesting together. They may have flu strains but they have adapted to their presence. So why is there a bird flu threat? A question only partially answered by laboratory research.

The problem is not with wild birds but with animal husbandry. Breeding poultry in such a way that the birds exist in unhealthy conditions and which disallow the dynamic adaptation process produces birds that cannot resist viruses, wherever they may come from. RW knows that knowledge of the topic can only be gained in the field. Thus he frequently works outdoors. But his statements are overwhelmingly about mutaton processes and other genetic concepts (thus elevating his theories to the research grant league).

RW is often pictured in his laboratory with lab. technicians in the background. In fact, it is lab. technicians which are the unsung heroes in biological science. They often make small discoveries that can lead to large research grants, scientific prizes and even the Nobel prize. One of Australia's leading microbiologists, Prof. Adler, Monash, learnt as a young student that learning techniques from lab. technicians (I was one of them) was essential to success. Thus it is nearly always a TEAM of researchers rather than an individual who are responsible for scientific progress. (Usually the lab. technicians shudder when the Prof. walks into the lab. The most respected Prof. is the one who openly displays ineptness in using a complex apparatus).

Even though RW works on a cure for bird flu he has "three months supply of food and water" in case there is an outbreak in USA. Is this a joke? Would he desert his post when he is most needed and take to the hills? How much faith, therefore, should we have in his ability?

Although this is a short critique I believe that it is sufficient to show that Dr. Webster is not an exemplary scientist. He appears to be inflaming an alarm situation rather than getting to the underlying causes of that situation.