Historical Perspective: What Constitutes Discovery (of a New Virus)?

ABSTRACT

A historic review of the discovery of new viruses leads to reminders of traditions that have evolved over 118 years. One such tradition gives credit for the discovery of a virus to the investigator(s) who not only carried out the seminal experiments but also correctly interpreted the findings (within the technological context of the day). Early on, ultrafiltration played a unique role in "proving" that an infectious agent was a virus, as did a failure to find any microscopically visible agent, failure to show replication of the agent in the absence of viable cells, thermolability of the agent, and demonstration of a specific immune response to the agent so as to rule out duplicates and close variants. More difficult was "proving" that the new virus was the etiologic agent of the disease ("proof of causation")-for good reasons this matter has been revisited several times over the years as technologies and perspectives have changed. One tradition is that the discoverers get to name their discovery, their new virus (unless some grievous convention has been broken)-the stability of these virus names has been a way to honor the discoverer(s) over the long term. Several vignettes have been chosen to illustrate several difficulties in holding to the traditions (vignettes chosen include vaccinia and variola viruses, yellow fever virus, and influenza viruses. Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus, Murray Valley encephalitis virus, human immunodeficiency virus 1, Sin Nombre virus, and Ebola virus). Each suggests lessons for the future. One way to assure that discoveries are forever linked with discoverers would be a permanent archive in one of the universal virus databases that have been constructed for other purposes. However, no current database seems ideal-perhaps members of the global community of virologists will have an ideal solution.