Science desk
< July 31	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 1

Can a population be immunized by spreading a harmless engineered virus?

Instead of producing a vaccine against COVID-19, can we engineer a harmless virus to produce not just copies of itself but also of some of the proteins of COVID-19? One can then release the virus in the population and it would then cause the population to get immune against COVID-19. Count Iblis (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this sort of thing has never been attempted, you are asking for speculation, which is not what this desk is for. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the refdesks that compels people to [A] make up rules that don't exist, and [B] try to control the behavior of other editors who aren't doing anything wrong? Many of the questions on the refdesks are about things that have never been attempted. You didn't complain when someone asked "Would it make sense to have a launch site, maybe even an electromagnetic one, on the peak of Olympus Mons on Mars, to save fuel?" That has never been attempted. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We could also ask why does Wikipedia compel people to say that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a general web host provider. Reference desks are supposed to be reference desks, not general chat boards for opinions, predictions, debate, or original research (which actually are rules that do exist; see the top of this page). The fact that there are many inappropriate questions and answers on the reference desks does not mean we should have more. 85.76.65.201 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want those to be the rules, post an RfC and get the community to approve them. Don't simply make up rules and expect others to follow them. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "which actually are rules that do exist; see the top of this page", see WP:LOCALCON. Nobody has ever tried to get the community to approve the rules at the top of this page -- no doubt because they know that in several areas they directly contradict existing policies such as WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This,[1] for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a low quality post, but allowed under Wikipedia's current rules. The question is whether anyone can write an RfC that targets posts like that one without targeting good posts. "I know it when I see it" does not make for a good Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to speculate or make predictions. But if someone notable has speculated on something, and/or someone else notable has argued why that speculation is flawed, then we can point someone to that information. "Can we engineer a harmless virus to ... cause the population to get immune against [another virus]" sounds like something someone somewhere might have discussed, so seems to me to be a reasonable question to ask. (It also sounds like the sort of thing that would be a major ethical no-no, with the risk of serious problems if it goes wrong). Iapetus (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some vaccines do use weakened viruses and that can lead to community spread. This is why oral polio vaccine was phased out in many countries. See Polio vaccine#Vaccine-induced polio. Rmhermen (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any virus that can spread and induce an immune response cannot be harmless. The coronavirus itself is an example of this; deaths directly from viral infection are rare, but deaths from peoples' immune system overreactions are common. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to what is known as a viral vector vaccine, such as one of the leading contenders for an anti-Covid 19 vaccine, the so-called "Oxford vaccine" now in Phase III trials that has been created by Sarah Gilbert and her team at Oxford University. To quote from the article about it in this week's New Scientist (No. 3293, August 2020, pp8-9):

"The key component is DNA coding for a surface protein – which would normally trigger an immune response – from the virus you want to protect yourself against. Like a Trojan Horse, this is put inside the shell of an adenovirus that causes colds in chimpanzees, which delivers it to human cells, where the protein is made."

However, distributing such a "delivery virus" by person-to-person infection is not a good idea. Firstly, the delivery virus out "in the wild" could itself mutate, become more serious or deadly in its effects, and become an epidemic of its own. Secondly, those infected with the delivery virus (regardless of its "payload") become immune to it, so it can't be used on them a second time for either the same or a different payload. If it spreads by infecting the population as a whole, that delivery virus (and there aren't many suitable ones) becomes useless for future epidemics: if it's administered as a vaccine that doesn't spread to others, we know exactly who has received it, and therefore who we can – and can't – use it on in future. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.132.105 (talk)

Yes, and it should also be noted that most vaccines require one or more adjuvants in addition to the antigen(s) to provoke an immune response sufficient to generate immunity. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]