Print 85 comment(s) - last by xeroshadow.. on Sep 25 at 12:47 PM

Professor Macolm Casadaban of the University of Chicago has died in what appears to be an unusual accident. Reportedly the autoposy revealed that exposure to a weakened strain of the plague enterobacteria may have killed him.  (Source: University of Chicago)
Incident echoes death of Russian Cold War researcher

In 1988, 44-year-old Russian bioweapons researcher Dr. Nikolai Ustinov while working at Russia's Vector Institute on the Marburg virus, a potent pathogen, accidentally pricked himself with a needle he was using to inject guinea pigs.  The researcher was kept in quarantine, and he kept a detailed journal of his symptoms, even as his fingers bled onto the pages.  In the end he died and Russia harvested his blood to produce Variant U, named in his honor, which was one of the most pathogenic bioweapons to date.

Professor Malcolm J. Casadaban of the U. of C. Medical Center, a prestigious researcher with degrees from Harvard, Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology followed a much different path -- one of medical research to prevent disease -- but has been found dead, presumably in a similar incident. 

The professor had been working with a weakened strain of plague bacteria to study its genetics.  In theory, the weakened version was harmless, but an autopsy of the 60-year-old molecular geneticist showed "no obvious cause of death".  What it did find was the presence of the weakened strain of the plague bacteria Yersinia pestis in his blood.  The strain has been Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for lab studies and is believed to be nonpathogenic, but some doctors are theorizing it might have killed Professor Casadaban.

Dr. Kenneth Alexander, a virologist and chief of pediatric infections at the U. of C. Medical Center says that its understandable that Professor Casadaban was exposed to the bacteria as it was assumed to be harmless and no special safety precautions were required to handle it. According to him, the typical procedure is to wear gloves, a lab coat and protective goggles, and the bacteria would be disposed of in a biohazard bag and heated for about two hours.

Officials are still trying to determine whether Professor Casadaban had any preexisting conditions that made him more susceptible to the strain, or if there was something different about the particular strain he was working with.  They have notified his close contacts and are working with the CDC to isolate them, as a precaution.

Dr. Alexander is at a loss about how the weakened strain could cause death.  He bemoans, "There's no indication thus far that this is anything different from the laboratory strain that we know it to be.  I can't find any reports of anything like this happening before."

His 21-year-old daughter Leigh Casadaban remarks on the tragic loss, stating, "[Dad] tried so hard to be healthy. He hated smoking. He would never even let us watch a movie with smoking in it. He never used alcohol."

Officials have reportedly found no evidence of foul play involved in the death.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By MeesterNid on 9/21/2009 12:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
but an autopsy of the 60-year-old molecular genetics

The correct word would be geneticist here

RE: Wow...seriously
By DarkElfa on 9/21/2009 12:36:44 PM , Rating: 1
Well Sieg Heil to you too Word Hitler.

honestly guys, despite spelling errors and the like, you can still understand what the story is about. Do you guys just come here to harass the authors about their grammar?! Stop Trolling and derailing the topic over your OCPD.

RE: Wow...seriously
By Steve1981 on 9/21/2009 1:00:28 PM , Rating: 4
Wuold uyo repfer ot reda aritclse wittren ilke htis? Fi uoy ingore rlues thye bcemoe eamninglsse.

RE: Wow...seriously
By stirfry213 on 9/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wow...seriously
By TomZ on 9/21/2009 1:04:18 PM , Rating: 4
Better yet, maybe DT authors should proofread their articles and have an editor review them. That would allow readers to focus more on the content rather than being distracted by all the spelling, grammar, diction, and factual errors.

RE: Wow...seriously
By npoe1 on 9/21/2009 2:21:41 PM , Rating: 5
I support grammar Nazis because English is not native to me... and I want to learn it right.

RE: Wow...seriously
By ClownPuncher on 9/21/2009 3:54:46 PM , Rating: 3
I support grammar Nazis because English is not native to me... and I want to learn it correctly .


RE: Wow...seriously
By inighthawki on 9/21/2009 4:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the word "right" fits there just perfectly...

-Accurately; correctly: answered the question right.

RE: Wow...seriously
By foolsgambit11 on 9/21/2009 6:09:55 PM , Rating: 4
In fact, in common usage, right may be a better pick than correctly. "I want to learn it right" definitely means 'I want to learn proper English', while "I want to learn it correctly" introduces a little ambiguity in my mind, where it might mean, 'I want to learn English using the correct process by which to learn English'. I mean, I would probably assume it means the same thing as 'right', and the author was being pretentious, but perhaps they chose 'correctly' to specifically distinguish their meaning from the same sentence using 'right'.

Or maybe I'm overanalyzing it.

But yes, generally speaking, only extreme traditionalists will insist on 'correctly' over 'right', most likely because 'correctly' sounds more proper because it is has Latin roots, while 'right' is Germanic/Anglo-Saxon in origin. "Proper" speech almost always favors Latin-rooted words.

RE: Wow...seriously
By JohnnyCNote on 9/21/2009 4:36:03 PM , Rating: 1
I support grammar Nazis because English is not native to me... and I want to learn it right.

"Props" to you for taking your study of English seriously!

As a student of several languages, including Spanish, Russian, Greek, German and French, I can fully appreciate what you're saying. I would never have attained the proficiencies I have without being corrected . . .

RE: Wow...seriously
By Regs on 9/21/2009 10:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
I've been trying to learn it right for the past 27 years. It's almost like it changes from day-to-day.

RE: Wow...seriously
By Icehearted on 9/24/2009 9:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
I freely admit that I am a Grammar Nazi, but words are what I do, and I believe I do them well.

Contextually speaking, while correct or right might have either been perfectly applicable in this case, I would have recommended one go with restructuring the sentence entirely. English, however, is not the poster's native language, so considering this (as well as taking into account the malleability of the English language, especially in it's Americanized iteration) I'd say he did a fine job.

As I read the article I was reminded of Stephen King's "The Stand". If his death was the result o this virus, it worries me to think of what other potential mishaps are just waiting to happen.

RE: Wow...seriously
By jonup on 9/21/2009 2:57:08 PM , Rating: 4
So, you get distracted by a typo? Don't you have something better to do?
I do agree with you that they should proof read their articles.

RE: Wow...seriously
By Alexstarfire on 9/21/2009 3:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
I may not be distracted by typos, but it doesn't mean that they should simply just be ignored either. Considering the amount of typos and other grammar errors on here I'd say a high schooler wrote it. Man, high schooler looks really wrong, ohh well. I'm not saying this site is CNN or something, but come on. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be ANY quality control. These are simple mistakes, not like a misplaced comma or something that 95% of people won't notice.

RE: Wow...seriously
By afkrotch on 9/22/2009 2:44:01 AM , Rating: 5
A small typo can be distracting. Like a small fart during the middle of a symphony can be distracting.

RE: Wow...seriously
By CascadingDarkness on 9/22/2009 11:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is definately the best analogy I've heard in a long time.

RE: Wow...seriously
By jonmcc33 on 9/22/2009 11:28:35 AM , Rating: 3
It would be necessary if these were in fact "articles". In reality they are merely blogs which generally point to actual articles.

RE: Wow...seriously
By xeroshadow on 9/25/2009 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
What was this article about?

RE: Wow...seriously
By joex444 on 9/21/2009 5:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
How well one can decipher its apparent meaning is a meaningless topic.

What is really going on here is the fact that you are on the Internet and the best way to communicate an article is by typing it. Thus, it must be read. When you read something that is put together poorly you begin to question the legitimacy of the author, and hence the organization. As such, when you consider on the whole how many mistakes are found on DT on a daily basis, its actually quite surprising that people trust them with any sort of information. I mean, if you can make these kinds of mistakes how easy would it be to accidentally put in or leave out a "not" and then you have a brand new article.

"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki