Really. Apparently it is a push for the creepy 'virus' again? I may be wrong, but it seems to me the article is making a case for the future use of the 'virus,' banking on the already anticipated "grave consequences" of it, whatever they may be, if even real.
"After all, we cannot rule out the possibility that, assuming concrete situation…
Really. Apparently it is a push for the creepy 'virus' again? I may be wrong, but it seems to me the article is making a case for the future use of the 'virus,' banking on the already anticipated "grave consequences" of it, whatever they may be, if even real.
"After all, we cannot rule out the possibility that, assuming concrete situations in life, neglecting research could have grave consequences, e.g. with regard to resistant types of viruses."
A better title of this bogus pubmed article might have been 'The use of the virus as a valid driver for biotechnology.'
Really. Apparently it is a push for the creepy 'virus' again? I may be wrong, but it seems to me the article is making a case for the future use of the 'virus,' banking on the already anticipated "grave consequences" of it, whatever they may be, if even real.
"After all, we cannot rule out the possibility that, assuming concrete situations in life, neglecting research could have grave consequences, e.g. with regard to resistant types of viruses."
A better title of this bogus pubmed article might have been 'The use of the virus as a valid driver for biotechnology.'