Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: mckinney@cs.uiuc.edu (C.R. Mckinney) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: viruses, computer & bio Message-ID: Date: 22 Jul 89 00:32:55 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 47 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu This is not a topic of current discussion, but I am curious to see what people on this notesfile have to say about it. I am not a computer virus expert or a biology expert, so please no flames... I was having a discussion with a friend about computer viruses, and he was saying that he thought that they weren't really like biological viruses. Several other people have expressed this view, that the term "virus" is misleading. Seems to me that it captures quite a few of the critical qualities of computer viruses, and the analogy holds up quite well, for several reasons: * First, a bio-virus is one of the simplest ways that DNA has of replicating itself. That is, if you view organisms as merely vehicles which DNA uses to replicate itself, then viruses represent the minimal means of doing so. Likewise, computer viruses are programs whose primary task is to replicate them- selves by attaching to other programs, just as bio-viruses attach to cells. Some computer viruses have code that helps to camouflage them, or keeps them dormant until a specified time. Likewise, some bio-viruses have DNA that codes for traits that hides them or keeps them dormant until conditions are right... * Second, in most cases bioviruses harm their hosts, and often lead to their deaths, but they allow them to live long enough to infect other hosts. The same is true of computer viruses, which may or may not be intended to bring down the machine; or may do so as a "byproduct" of their replication, just as a host may die as a "byproduct" of over-replication of a biovirus. * Third, there are "vaccines" for computer viruses, just as there are vaccines for bio-viruses. When the vaccine is administered, the virus is no longer a threat. In summary, the computer virus metaphor is very apt, and I don't know why people want to criticize it. I welcome your replies and comments. --Randy McKinney Urbana, IL mckinney@m.cs.uiuc.edu [exercise for the reader: Why is it unlikely that nanotech will produce "bio" viruses that are worse than those that could be produced by existing (ie, gene-splicing) techniques? --JoSH]