A given virus requires attachment sites on the outside of the cells it infects, so such sites are part of the female moiety. When the viral nucleic acid gets inside a cell, it interacts with various cellular molecules--all such molecules are part of the female moiety. The specifics will depend on the specific virus.
By defining the female moiety in that way, one can perhaps improve one's intellectual focus. One�s focus can be on a limited number of cellular components or regions that are involved with viral replication.
Possibly, one should include, in the female moeity, cellulalr components which inhibit the producition of a specific virus. That would include restriction enzymes in bacteria and viral antibodies in humans. You see, the fate of the inhibiting elements is linked to that of a given virus. If the a virus become extinct, the inhibiting elements will no longer be useful and will be lost by atrophy. Thus, swine flu had been largely eliminated prior to 2008 and antibodies against it were no longer being produced by the immune systems of younger humans. That was cited as one factor in the resurgence of that virus in that year.
In May 2007 I tried to explain my thinking to an unreceptive Dr. Ann Roman. Dr. Roman, was Associate Chairperson of the Department of Microbiology at the IU Medical School. A day or two later I sent her an e-mail with the following statements:
"In our recent phone conversation, I thought I understood you to say that my statement that, 'All viruses are male,' is, in your opinion, 'meaningless.'
"My mission is to clear up a number of glaring logical problems in molecular biology. In your own field, there's frequent reference to bacterial 'species,' even though the definition of the term seems illogical because it isn't consistent with the definition for higher plants and animals. There's been a similar problem in virology, and a recent virology text drops the term 'species' altogether in favor of other means of classification.
"However, I've suggested a revised definition for 'viral species.' This stems from my statement that, 'All viruses are male.'
. . .
"After thinking about it a little more, I think a similar revision might be used to make the definition of bacterial 'species' consistent with the rest of taxonomy.
"I'm submitting this to a professor of logic at a top-ranked university to see if he'd like to offer any correction to the following:
"You said my statement was 'meaningless.' I think a logically meaningless statement would be one that had syntax not recognized in the language being used or linguistic elements that aren't defined or allowed. So
' Male **lal viruses are '
would be meaningless in English. Otherwise a statement should be either true or false. The truth or falsity might be unknown, either to an individual or to humanity as a whole. Shades of meaning would be expressed by statements such as 'Some viruses are not entirely effeminate.' But such a statement, though less categorical itself, would be true or false without qualification.
"There's also a truth category, if I remember correctly, of 'true but unprovable' which occurs in Godel's proof, but that probably isn't a concern here."
In 2008 I tried to talk to Dr. Roman a second time on the phone to see if her opinion was still the same. She said that she hadn't liked our previous conversation and hung up.
[ 5 ] Summary of response from microbiologists
Our informal survey of microbiologists and medical people indicated a plurality in favor of my centall idea that all viruses are male. We were able to include about 250 U.S. microbiologists, along with a lesser number in other countries.
Most didn't care to voice an opinion.
But of those who did, the current tally includes five concurring to some degree with �all viruses are male.� I didn't count myself in that. Among the five were two microbiology chairs at major universities.
Of those not included in the plurality: (a) One, as has been reported already, said, �All viruses are female.� (b) One said some are male and some are female. (c) Jennifer S. Griffin wrote that viruses are male during part of the viral life cycle and female during another part. (d) Dr.Nancy Trun said viruses are neuter.
(e) Two said that the statement, "All viruses are male," is "meaningless." (In addition to Ann Roman, I think Dr. R M Krug voted for "meaningless." I talked to him on the phone, but we were cut off. When I tried to talk to him again later, he said, "I'm not interested," and hung up.)
(f) Jon Huibregtse has said that my central statement isn't "helpful" or "enlightening." (g) There were also a few undecided individuals who've expressed a certain interest without saying anything specific either to affirm or deny the truth of my thesis.
The debate isn�t over, however, and the reader is invited to state his or her opinion.
And here are a few additional details regarding the above tally. These details are grouped by the same small letter categories as just above.
(a) Dr. Desrosiers cast the only vote for �all viruses are female.� That, at least, was his initial response. I�m not clear on his present position. There have been no recent e-mails from him. I�ve made two or three efforts to reach him by phone, but so far that effort hasn�t been successful.
(b) "Some male/some female." This came from a microbiologist who sent a spirited and interesting e-mail. His statement was unfortunately lost through a computer glitch, but not before I�d read it once. He said that �acute� viruses are male and that non-acute are female.
I haven�t been able to locate the term �acute virus.� I�m guessing that acute viruses are those that are later able to reproduce after leaving the cell they�ve infected. I regret not being able to give the name of that respondent, but if he will send another e-mail, I�ll include his name in this presentation.
(c) Nancy Trun expressed the idea that viruses are neuter. However, However, I couldn't halp noting a discrepency in her text on bacterial genetics. When a bacterium divides, her text refers to the two resulting bacteria as "daughter cells." There's no basis for that. The correct term, I think, would be "progeny cells." Dr. Trun may be a "female chauvinist," and saying so gave me a chance to employ a phrase which I thought wasn't being given enough use.
(d) Some respondents may have had a conflict of interest or what they might have thought of as a conflict of interest:
> Dr. Krug is the one of the authors of an excellent text on viruses. Although I've spent some hours with the text and can recommend it, it does dispenses with classification of viruses by species. A link to a site that sells this text is: click here.
> Conflict of interest problems at the Univeristy of Chicago, caused by the Greenspan family, have already been described. Similar problems at IU, where Mr. Rick Greenspan was the Athletics Director in 2008, might also have disqualified the opinions of Dr. Ann Roman and Dr. Hal Broxmeyer.
Dr. Broxmeyer, in a phone conversation of 2008, asked not to be quoted. That suggests that, although he didn't regard the virus-gender controversy as entirely frivolous, he thought it personally disadvantageous to get involved.
(e) Some quotations from those who didn't take sides:
>>> �I could be wrong, but if this is the Chicago Schneewind I know, he is not a virologist but works on gram-positive bacteria.� Abigail Salyers [email protected] Nov 7, 2003.
CONTINUE