- #1
callie123
Gold Member
- 22
- 10
Hey, I'm writing a science-fiction novel, and trying to keep as much "sci" in there as I can!
Scenario: A character has been successfully cured of a deadly disease, using cool (insert hand wave) stuff. But all records of the cure have been destroyed (files of info, samples, etc). Now the character is facing the decision of staying in a place of safety, or leaving this place in order to share information of the cure with others.
My question is: Is this a false dilemma? Is there a situation in which the person would be needed in order to "reverse engineer" a vaccine or treatment (or both, as in the case of preposed therapeutic vaccines) or would a simple blood sample be sufficient? I'm trying to work up a dramatic plot moment, but I don't have the medical knowledge to know if this is realistic.
So, I guess this is a double question. 1. Is reverse-engineering a vaccine or treatment plausible, and 2. Is a living subject necessary or at least more beneficial than a blood or tissue sample? Thanks, guys!
Scenario: A character has been successfully cured of a deadly disease, using cool (insert hand wave) stuff. But all records of the cure have been destroyed (files of info, samples, etc). Now the character is facing the decision of staying in a place of safety, or leaving this place in order to share information of the cure with others.
My question is: Is this a false dilemma? Is there a situation in which the person would be needed in order to "reverse engineer" a vaccine or treatment (or both, as in the case of preposed therapeutic vaccines) or would a simple blood sample be sufficient? I'm trying to work up a dramatic plot moment, but I don't have the medical knowledge to know if this is realistic.
So, I guess this is a double question. 1. Is reverse-engineering a vaccine or treatment plausible, and 2. Is a living subject necessary or at least more beneficial than a blood or tissue sample? Thanks, guys!
Last edited: