When it infects humans, the avian flu is unusually lethal, killing over half the people who come down with symptoms. But, so far at least, the virus has only spread from birds to humans, and not between humans. Recently, some labs evolved a version of the avian flu that can be transmitted among ferrets while retaining its lethal nature. The researchers who did this work sequenced the flu genome, identified all the genetic changes, and sent publications in to Science and Nature.

That's where things got complicated, with the journals delaying publication and the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity stepping in. The end result was a moratorium on further research, with the journals discussing publishing a censored form of the original papers. During this pause, the World Health Organization convened its own panel of experts who released a statement on Friday, calling for the moratorium on new research to be extended, and saying that the papers should be published in full, even if that means an extensive delay.

The publication of the full details of the paper would allow anyone with a reasonable level of molecular biology skill to order up the requisite DNA and produce a copy of the newly evolved virus. That raises the risk that the virus could be spread by a lab that doesn't have the requisite containment expertise, or by someone who intentionally uses it as a weapon.

At the same time, the full sequence would also allow public health authorities to screen for the virus, and researchers to attempt to develop therapies that target it. Bruce Alberts, the Editor-in-Chief of Science, speaking at a press conference on Friday, suggested that knowing the sequence would allow research to determine their structure of the virus' proteins. All of this suggests there's value in a full publication.

Alberts spoke at a hastily organized press conference at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In general, he seemed annoyed that places like the WHO had let the issue slide for this long before it got dropped into his lap. "They could have worked on [a plan for publication] for the last five years and they did not," he said. "In fact, we were surprised and disappointed that nothing had been done until this so called 'emergency.'"

The complaint aside, it looks like Science will follow the WHO's advice; plans to publish a redacted version of the papers (which appeared certain just a few weeks ago), are now on hold. "The plan that we did have—both Nature and Science were on track to publish a redacted version in the middle of March—that's now not going to happen," Alberts said.

Ars was also given a statement from Dr. Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature. "Discussions at the WHO meeting made it clear how ineffective redaction and restricted distribution would be for the Nature paper," Campbell said. "It also underlined how beneficial publication of the full paper could be. So that is how we intend to proceed."

Both Alberts and Campbell emphasized that the research community will have to figure out how to ensure the publications are handled responsibly when they do come out. And, at the moment, nobody's even sure how to reach that sort of decision, much less when it will happen. For the time being, the papers look like they'll be stuck in limbo, perhaps the most famous papers that have never been published.