That would never be admitted by the Chinese, but is certainly an interesting hypothesis (especially since sequencing the genome did not show where SARS came from). We will probably never know if she is right. Very few nations would even consider publicly accusing China of accidentally releasing SARS.
Sadly, Dr. Doyle was off base with her comments about SARS appearing to be weakening. The U.S. CDC has explicitly stated that the disease does not seem to be weakening. Since this remains a very real possibility, we can still hope that it will in the future. (Remember, the Spanish Flu in 1918 mutated and got worse before it mysteriously went away.)
Likewise, her observations on SARS in the U.S. missed the fact that the U.S. is using the world's most liberal definition of SARS, and most of our "cases" are not SARS at all. The U.S. CDC has stated that the number of "suspected" cases is expected to drop significantly by the end of this week when they change the definition. They have also stated that an effective way to test for SARS would lower the number of cases in the U.S. significantly.
So, if we assume it is a man made pathogen, where does that put us as far as a cure or vaccination goes? I know next to nothing about microbiology so bear with me. (I find it quite fascinating though--it's a shame we pick our college majors at the age most of us do!)
I am inclined to think a man made pathogen if picked apart would show some sort of logic, planning and organization that would not be found in nature. Things in nature are always assymetrical, chaotic...hence, the beauty of nature.
So, would something man made not be easier to dissect and "cure" rather than something natural?
I'm grasping for hope here...