The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7397 p484
22 April 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 40K, Acrobat Reader

Continuing the search for biosecurity more
Coming before the swallow dares: virtues and hazards of the daffodil more
Theological implications of a simple precaution need to be examined more

Continuing the search for biosecurity

In recent years scientists have been forced to face the problem of how details of their research might give hints to criminal organisations and repressive governments on how to carry out manufacturing procedures calculated to terrorise peaceful communities. It is impossible to impose security safeguards that allow the legitimate publication of research of importance to scientists everywhere while suppressing details that might tempt evil-doers. Terrorist threats using biological products are not new, and their scope is ever widening.

A leading article in Nature for 6 April reviews some of the matters affecting biosecurity. At an open meeting last month the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity showed that progress is being made towards defining guidelines for scientists whose research results that might assist terrorists or state-run bioweapons laboratories if unwisely disseminated. Both the risks and benefits of openness need to be assessed and counterbalanced. A checklist should be widely distributed to raise awareness and help peer reviewers, university administrators, students and government officials. Biosecurity risks, as most people see them, outweigh the benefits of publication if techniques to devise weapons are revealed. But results, as published, are liable to cause public misunderstanding or encourage sensation if badly presented.

Scientific openness is fundamentally beneficial, and those who oppose research publication should offer proof of potential risk before being taken seriously. The final onus is on investigators and their institutions and keeping decisions in local hands offers the best prospects for proper use. At the same time it cuts to a minimum the opportunity for a hard-pressed bureaucracy to seek the least hazardous option.

Scientists, says the report, should always think carefully about their work and its security implications, and a sense of responsibility that is obvious will provide a sound guide and obviate painful disagreements with government agencies.

Back to Top

Coming before the swallow dares: virtues and hazards of the daffodil

Now is daffodil time. The familiar flower, Narcissus pseudonarcissus, has a vast folklore behind it and, as a therapeutic agent, has a chequered history.

Shakespeare commented on the daffodil’s appearance early in the year, “before the swallow dares”, and in Cornwall it has long been called the Lent lily.

According to Pliny, the plant was given the name narcissus not after the youth who studied his reflection in the pool, but because of confusion with an allied species called by the Greeks narke because of its overpowering, stupor-inducing odour. This was consecrated to the classical Furies, who were said to use it to disable their victims before attacking them.

John Hill, in his “Family herbal” of 1772, commented that the common daffodil has a round, white root, which is to be used medicinally in the fresh state and “kept in readiness in the garden”. It has great virtues, he remarks. Small doses given internally “act as a vomit and afterwards purge a little”. The best mode of administration is pressing the fresh root with white wine.

Nevertheless, Hill writes, its principal application is externally. “The fresh root bruised and applied to fresh wounds heals them very suddenly. Applied to strains and bruises, it is also excellent, taking away the swelling and the pain”.

In his 1636 “Historie of plants”, John Gerard remarks that narcissus roots “glew together very great wounds, yea and fresh gashes and cuts as happen about the veins, sinues and tendons. They have also a certaine cleansing facultie. The root of Narcissus stamped with honey and applied plaister-wise, helpeth them that are burned with fire and joineth together sinues that are cut in sunder. Being used in manner aforesaid it helpeth the great wrenches of the ankles, the aches and pains of the joints.”

Against such recommendations we must set the solemn warnings of more recent commentators. The consumption of daffodil bulbs is to be avoided, beyond doubt. There are many reports of people being poisoned when they have eaten daffodil bulbs in mistake for onions. According to one report, no strange taste was noticed during a meal of stewed beef with sliced daffodil bulb, but brisk diarrhoea followed.

Back to Top

Theological implications of a simple precaution need to be examined

An interesting aspect of the use of alcohol has been revealed in a comment published in The Lancet for 25 May by a group on behalf of the WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge. It points out the curious link that we encounter when discussing religious concepts and scientific attitudes towards social problems.

The consumption of alcohol in any form is expressly forbidden by strict Islamic doctrine, but alcohol applied topically is accepted internationally as part of the battle against cross-infection. For some Muslim health workers, however, the use of alcohol-based hand preparations currently recommended may raise ethical problems. According to basic Islamic tenets, methodical ablutions undertaken before certain ceremonies must be made with freely flowing water; the hands, face, forearms, ears, nose, mouth and feet must be washed three times and hair dampened with the same water.

In practice, some Muslim health care workers have proved reluctant to use the regular alcohol-based hand rub against cross-infection because it may involve the forbidden absorption of alcohol. Although alcoholic formulations that are not designed for ingestion have generally been permitted, concern has been raised over the potential diffusion of the ethanol or its metabolites into body tissues after dermal absorption or inhalation of vapour. In the UK such a problem has been dismissed as insignificant, and alcohol-based hand rubs have been generally introduced into acute care hospitals as an effective precaution against cross-infection among staff and visitors.

Nevertheless, there is a need to develop increased awareness of possible threat to Muslim beliefs, and to insist that compliance with accepted hygienic practices is necessary if the spread of infections within health care institutions is to be minimised.

Back to Top