In case you were wondering, The Command Line is a technology podcast by Thomas Gideon. The podcast discusses a wide spectrum of computer news, security, technology, and its societal impact.
Indeed, as the Bad Doctor said, niche.
Fweeeep!
CC BY image from Augapfel via Flickr
The debate on how to handle research on the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) H5N1 virus has continued furious this past week, in both scientific and political circles. As previously covered here, researchers took the HPAI H5N1 virus and succeeded in making it more transmissible between ferrets in controlled laboratory conditions, in order to understand how the virus might mutate in nature to cause a pandemic in humans. That research has not yet been published (although a WHO committed decided that it will eventually, in full) for concerns that someone attempting to replicate said experiments might inadvertently induce such a pandemic.
What originally began as a discussion focused on the freedom of science publication and the fear of someone attempting to weaponize influenza for nefarious purposes has morphed into a much broader conversation about influenza research. While there are many opinions being expressed and passions put on display, it makes me happy to see that through the noise of argument, some sane specific issues are being considered. These include further consideration of how lethal the HPAI H5N1 really is, and what biosafety level is appropriate for any laboratory doing such experiments.
The open access journal mBio has a series of commentaries this week looking at both of these points. While there are no easy answers, they do a great job of framing the issues involved:
I still remain firmly of the opinion that such research is important, and the details of it should be fully published and not withheld on a “need to know” basis that political entities have control over. I think the moratorium and the discussion are also vastly important, and that there needs to be a global scientific consensus on these issues moving forward. Unfortunately, we are missing key pieces of data to best inform these conversations, especially about the true lethality of HPAI H5N1 and how this ferret-adapted virus would affect humans. The key focus should be on filling those knowledge gaps with actual data and reasonable speculation, not politically-tinged fear.
I find it fascinating that those on the “we must not publish” side of things are now claiming they are less motivated by concerns over terrorism and more over crazy biohackers conducting experiments for… fun? inquiry? boredom? … in unsecured non-laboratory areas. I mean, we at The Lair are all about mad science, but I am forced to wonder data the US government has on DIY influenza enthusiasts that are fueling these concerns. For instance, how many such people really exist who have the equipment and skills? Is there a real basis for concern here, or are some people watching too many garage stunts on Youtube? What do you think?
In any case, I suspect the point is moot. As Dr. Thanatos noted last week, when the ferret population at large realizes what we have done to them, the apocalypse will be upon us.
CC BY image from Joe Gatling via Flickr
After our look last week at the issues surrounding whether or not to publish research on the highly pathogenic avian influenza type H5N1 (HPAI H5N1), there have been a few informative developments that are worth checking out. To briefly recap, HPAI H5N1 is the strain of “bird flu” that has killed almost 60% of the humans who have been confirmed to be infected by it, but doesn’t spread at all well from person to person. Two research groups were looking at the question of whether it would be possible for it to mutate in a way that it could more easily spread among mammals, and after many attempts, were successful in making a version that would be more easily transmitted between ferrets. The studies were set to be published in the journals Science and Nature, but the US government science bioterrorism watchdog group NSABB recommended against the publication of the full data, causing a rather large debate over the potential for influenza as a terrorist bioweapon as well as open access to scientific research.
Some new takes on the matter:
Fouchier was able to provide some new insight into his own work, not only describing the ferret experiments in more detail than has been previously reported: the mutations they found made HPAI H5N1 transmissible through the air between ferrets, but did not make them serious ill or kill them. Furthermore, he noted that the mutated H5N1 caused less severe disease in the ferrets that the current H1N1 virus did, and that ferrets infected with H1N1 before being exposed to the mutated H5N1 did not get sick at all. Additionally, from his data, he does not think that the mutant virus would spread widely in a large population of ferrets, let alone have pandemic potential in humans.
Osterholm ultimately clarified that the NSABB’s biggest concern, and why they recommended against publishing the full data, was not the possibility of a terrorist using HPAI H5N1 as a bioweapon, but a “DIY scientist in their garage” attempting the same experiment and inadvertently causing a devastating human pandemic. While I personally understand the perspective, given all the details known to date, I still don’t think this a realistic possibility enough to warrant a specific government (especially on what clearly is a global issue, as Fauci points out at one point) restricting or controlling access to scientific data. Fauci noted that since the NSABB’s recommendation was made not to publish the studies, some of the old data has been clarified and some new data has come to light from the research groups, and these will be resent to the NSABB for their consideration.
The current status of the two HPAI H5N1 studies are thus: the NSABB, as an extension of the US government, recommended to Science and Nature not to publish the studies without leaving key details out. The World Health Organization, however, has endorsed the full publication of the research, but only after ample time for further discussion, and has meanwhile established a moratorium on all research of this kind involving HPAI H5N1. If anything certain is to be concluded about them, it is what Osterholm said at one point in the panel discussion:
“I think it’s safe to say that these are the two most famous unpublished manuscripts in life science history.”
My personal take on this whole mess remains that the full studies should be published, and will add great value to the global scientific understanding of how HPAI H5N1 could change to affect humans. Based on what has been presented about the research thus far, the risks seem quite low that this mutant virus could cause a human pandemic, and potential risks of allowing a specific country’s government (in this case, the US) to restrict access to publicly funded science that has global importance seem much greater. I was exceedingly pleased to hear the final comment offered at the end of the panel discussion, where an audience commenter called out much of the lay media for lazy, irresponsible reporting in spreading fear-based misinformation that has served to only cloud the public view of an already complex issue.
May I again suggest you enjoying this free access discussion from the ASM Biodefense meeting for your viewing pleasure today, perhaps during your lunch break? Indeed, I do!
FULL DISCLOSURE
Lets start with a little full disclosure. I was not a fan of the Cortex system when I first encountered it. My initial impressions were that the mechanics lacked flavor and innovation.
On the other hand, I am a huge fan of the Smallville flavor of Cortex (S-C). The Virtue-Relationships one-two punch is, in my opinion, somewhat revolutionary: having players roll based why they were doing something and for who they were doing it makes perfect sense for the narrative sort of game I typically like to play. So, when I discovered that Marvel Cortex (M-C) doesn’t use this combo, I was cautiously skeptical. (Though I will be looking at bringing some variation of Relationships and Virtues back as a hack to M-C for the right audience at some point.)
However, after reviewing the full core book, I think the proposed M-C structure is excellent for both the audience and for emulating the source material.
CHARACTER DEFINITION
The character sheet is broken into several sections: Affiliations, Distinctions, Power Sets, Specialties, and Milestones. Lets look at each one in order.
Affiliations / Solo-Buddy-Team: This is an overall simplification of the Relationships concept. But rather needing to have a specific person in the area (or inspiring your action), the die you use is based on an ancient concept: “One. Two. Or many.” Simply put, how many people are fighting on your side? The answer determines which die you use. This makes it easier to swap heroes in and out of the campaign and it models the comics well. Spider-Man does his best when teamed up with another hero, but doesn’t typically (or at least historically) do the team thing. You get a d6, a d8, or d10 depending on your distribution.
Distinctions / Tag-Lines: This is one of the many places where I see the influences of the Story Games movement, as this is very reminiscent of both Fred Hicks’ Fate system and Chad Underkoffen’s PDQ system. It is also an indication that Cam Banks and team have been employing mind-reading technology to extract my own thoughts on super hero game design. This could also be interpreted as a refinement of Virtues from S-C as the Distinctions describe Personality Traits (among other things). On any given roll, this will give you either a d8 or a d4 and a power point. (As a side note, this alone underlines the face that d4s should be viewed as a challenge.)
Power Sets: These are thematically defined collections of one or more powers, special effects (SFX) and limits. Each individual power is rated from d6 to d12. The Core Book provides some guidance on relative power levels to assist in character modelling (more on this later). Each character has one to two power sets.
Distinctions / Talents and Skills: Broadly and thematically defined, you don’t list all your character’s skills (distinctions) on your sheet – only those things at which you are very good or better (Expert or Master). The list provided in the Core Book is pretty complete, and it would easy to add more if you needed something specific to provide more flavor. They also represent a key tactical opportunity when you have one that applies. Expert Distinctions are normally d8 and Master Distinctions are normally d10, but you can (without a Plot Point expenditure) convert them to multiple smaller dice (step down a die size to add a die to a minimal size of d6). Do you want more dice or bigger dice? Bigger dice can increase your chances of success, but more dice mean you have more options and the possibility of multiple effects.
Milestones / Experience: Reminiscent of keys from Clinton Nixon’s Shadows of Yesterday, characters gain experience when they accomplish pre-defined tasks. Those XP can then be used in short term for Plot Points, medium term for event/campaign “unlockables” (special bonuses specific to the Watcher’s current story), or long term for character changes (though I will discuss this more later). One of my regular players is really not fond of the roll to improve system in S-C, so for him, at least, this will be perceived as an improvement.
MECHANICS
The basic die pool is larger in M-C than in S-C. And a single roll provides both the result of the action and the effect (stress). This is an elegant refinement over S-C. It also provides for some tactical decision-making on the part of the player – you can choose to sacrifice some chance of success to increase your potential damage on your opponent (as an example).
On a picky editing note, the mechanics feel somewhat over-written to me. But, I also feel that this is compensated for by the handy and useful one-page references provided for the Watcher and the players. At the core, despite the multiple tactical options, an action is simple – roll a handful of dice based on your sheet (one from each category mentioned above), choose two to total for your chance of success, and choose the largest remaining to identify the effect. Your opponent does the same and you compare your scores. Everything else is just tactics and frosting to a well-flavored cake.
The Plot Point / Doom Pool mechanic is essentially identical to the Plot Point / Trouble Pool mechanic from S-C. Players spend plot points to add dice, activate special effects, take advantage of any ones rolled by the Watcher. The Watcher spends dice from the Doom Pool to do the same. I’m unsurprised this remained unchanged as it works very well at the table.
CHALLENGES
Simply put, the game is not oriented to ‘traditional’ long-term player ownership and character development. The text even provides the opportunity for different players to play the same character during different events. As such, the experience rules for development are limited. If you want to play the same character into the next event, the book tells you to discuss what changes you wish to model with the Watcher and to just make them.
This brings us to the second challenge, from my perspective. The rules do not provide instruction for character generation – instead, you are encouraged to ‘model’ characters. This is very flexible and can allow you to create exactly the character you want, but it can be time-consuming. It fits well with an experience system that isn’t intended for long term change, as you can just make the adjustments you want between events. That may not be satisfying for some players (though at least one of my players – a different one – doesn’t much like figuring out what to improve, so she will probably like this).
An interesting mechanical quirk is that characters can have one or two power sets and assign any dice size to their powers. It strikes me that having two power sets may provide a slight numeric advantage over having one, but I will have to model that later to let you know. (I may also consider a hack that allows characters with only one power set and/or lower sized power dice to have one or more additional Plot Points at the start of an event. I will have to see how power variations play out.)
Overall, character modelling needs more examples. They provide some mechanical lists of SFX and limits, but very little in terms of practical implementation beyond the (admittedly) extensive list of heroes and villains that come with the main rules. The bigger gap is around Milestones. There is an explanation about how to set them up, but I really wanted more of a “how to” section.
(UPDATE: As I am writing this I heard via Cam Banks on Twitter that: “Random datafiles come later in a bonus download.” This means that M-C will have the same char gen options as the original TSR Marvel game. ‘Nuff Said.)
EVENTS and MARKETING
The idea of Events is clever, especially in light of all I’ve described. A framing narrative during which characters are more or less stable (as if, say, a particular set of writers and artists were interpreting them for a specific story line). There is a framework provided for defining your own event, but again, to do so is potentially very time-consuming for the Watcher. This is another case where more examples would be helpful: more unlockables, more event milestones, more explanation of how and why you would define them. That said, Milestones feel a little like a bolt on. Or rather, using them for character development feels like a bolt on. Milestones make sense as a way to advance the overall story, but less so as a way to improve your PC.
All of that said, I think what I’ve described as challenges may actually be clever design and marketing on the part of MWP. The need for more examples for character modelling and events encourages the purchase of more books. If I want more characters, more events, more examples, I can get them easily – just purchase the next event book for the game. Intentional or not, this means timing will be critical. The development team will need to get the books on time, but I have every confidence in Cam and the team will do so. I will also look for them to encourage community support. Group sourcing characters, events, milestones, etc. will spread interest in the game and should boost MWP’s overall sales.
HOW WILL I USE IT
My target audience is my kids – my daughter (soon to be 7) who wants to play Spider-Girl and my son (soon to be 11) who wants to play Toxin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxin_%28comics%29 ). I will also include one or more neighborhood children and parents if logistics can be worked out.
I will probably blend a completely custom world with the provided starter event. I am considering a world where the original Marvel heroes have continued to age and are more or less in an educational/sponsorship role for modern heroes. Definitely a What If/Alternate Earth. Depending on the player choices, I think they will each be students from hero-sponsored schools. I don’t want to focus on the school aspect – just give them a chance to be more or less novice heroes, unencumbered by history. The characters will be ‘modeled’ on the player choices, but not bound by the ‘reality’ of the Earth-616 versions. For instance, Spider-Girl will probably be the grand-daughter of the original Peter Parker (I have my own take on the Clone Sage).
FINAL CONCLUSION – Man-Spider gives it Five of Six Thumbs up.
+ Elegant update on the Cortex System.
+ Excellent model of the Comic Book genre.
+ It will work for my target audience.
+ Well worth the money.
+ I will probably buy additional supplements.
- Could use a little more detail around character and event design.
CC BY-NC-ND image from trepelu via Flickr
It is, perhaps, an understatement to note that we here in The Lair love mad science. We enjoy doing it, reaping the benefits when it works, and mocking those responsible (usually Minister Lynn) when it does not. This also lends us to pay a bit of attention when other people do mad science as well.
The big recent mad science news over the last few weeks has regarded two research teams that have been working to make the avian H5N1 influenza strain more easily transmissible among mammals. The fact that this research was done in the first place, and whether or not the full results of said research should be published, has sparked considerable public debate and a flurry of media reporting, both reasonable and terror-soaked.
The core issues is this: one type of avian influenza virus, know as the Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A H5N1, is present in birds in several regions of the world, and has rarely caused disease in humans because it is not easily transmitted from bird to human or person to person. The World Health Organization has been tracking human cases since 2003, and to date there have been 586 confirmed infections in humans resulting in 346 deaths, or a 59% death rate. A major concern has been the possibility that the virus might mutate to become more easily transmissible among humans, with the potential cause a highly lethal pandemic.
Recently, two teams of researchers tried to change the HPAI H5N1 in controlled laboratory conditions to be more transmissible among ferrets, which are a fair stand-in for humans in terms of observing influenza transmission and illness. The goal was to assess how easily such mutations might occur and what they would be, which could lead to improved vaccine development, assessment of drugs to treat this influenza, and develop plans to deal with a potential outbreak. The scientists were unsuccessful in directly manipulating the genes of the virus to produce the results they wanted, so they infected a ferret with the naturally occurring HPAI H5N1, isolated the virus from the ferret after the infection, and then infected another ferret with the virus. The intent was to see if the same viral sample would pick up mutations after as it “passed through” multiple ferrets such that it could be easily transmitted from ferret to ferret through the air. This was ultimately what happened.
The two teams presented their data at conferences last year, and then submitted formal papers to the journals Science and Nature for publication. Due to the fact that making a bad virus worse for humans raises the worry that bad humans may take the study results and try to do the same thing for evil ends, the studies were classified as Dual-Use Research of Concern, and sent to the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity for comment. The NSABB does not have the power to force the journals not to publish the studies, but can make recommendations; in this case, the recommendation was for publishing the studies but leaving key details out, such as the genetic sequences of the mutation mix involved.
This has raised a number of hotly debated questions. Should this research have been done in the first place? Is not publishing the full data prudent, to avoid bad people getting their hands on it, or is it fear-based science censorship that might set a precedent for preventing future infectious diseases studies from entering the public domain? My opinion is that this is not mad science but in fact important research to do, and the full papers should be published. Some specific thoughts on this:
The upshot is that the arguments against publishing this work are based in inflated fears and bad assumptions, and such “research censorship” would have negative repercussions in the future for people looking to do work on infectious agents. The question of “Why would you make an already bad virus worse?” is an important one, and the answer is that when done in a controlled environment, it will give us vital information that will help our chances of survival if this ever occurs in nature. Indeed, this seems to have been the ultimate decision of influenza experts at the WHO, who decreed a few days ago that the studies will be published in full.
For more robust discussion of the issue, check out the special series of editorials on “The H5N1 Manuscript Redaction Controversy” at the excellent open-access journal mBio, including one for publication, one against, and one decidedly on the fence.
I’m just glad Minister Lynn isn’t involved. He’s still locked in Level 17 of The Lair’s Menagerie without Internet access. I think.
Scott Roche is a prolific guy. Every time I look at his tweetstream he’s publishing a new collection of stories, or is pushing the work he does with Flying Island Press, or is pimping a new column for the Nifty Tech Blog, or is telling the world about one of his podcasts, or…
You get the point. The man likes words. When he put out the call for reviews of his new book, Caveat Veritatem, I decided to take him up on the offer. Here is how he describes it:
Truth is a dangerous thing. A little of it goes a long way and it can come back to bite you. That’s why our society (and most societies I would imagine) encourage the polite, little lie. Thus my title for this anthology “Caveat Veritatem” or “Beware of the Truth”. Here are five stories that tell various truths, no matter the consequences for you or for the characters.
This collection is a quick read and a pleasing one. It’s a good introduction to the author’s style, which is strong on character, moderate on description,m and shot on flowery prose. Roche spins a good story without wasting the reader’s time on details better left to their imagination. Each of these five stories has something to recommend it; the craft is strong here. The stories are all on the very short side, usually just a single scene, but his style and characterizations draw the reader in. Each tale had a strong core, but there was enough conflict to keep them interest and to keep the reader wondering what would happen next. When I finished, I found myself thinking about picking up some of his longer form works — I wanted more.
I have only one complaint: all of the stories feel like they end abruptly. Perhaps that’s part of the strategy (to leave the reader wanting more), or perhaps that’s simply how he crafts his short stories. If I had a wish, I would ask for a little more catharsis at the end of each story.
Despite my quibble with the endings, I would and do recommend this book. These five tales are the perfect length for a quick afternoon read and will leave the reader curious to see what other stories Roche has up his sleeve.
You can learn more about Scott Roche and his many projects at his website, http://scottroche.com.
Attention self-publishing authors. We want to review your books.
We know how hard it must be to build publicity for your work. You don’t have a marketing department or a bottomless budget. You don’t have a major powerhouse…or perhaps even a small windmill…backing you up. All you have is your passion for the work. We respect that. We’d like to review your work.
We need to be clear…we will review your work fairly. If we see glory, we’ll crow about it. If we see major problems, we will point them out. We’re not promising sunshine and roses, but we are promising to give your work a fair shake and to assist in getting the word out there.
If you are interested, please contact Chris Miller: ctmiller /at/ thesecretlair.com.
