I know it is an unconventional way to describe viruses, but would it still be technically correct?

closed as primarily opinion-based by David, canadianer, Bryan Krause, kmm, James Feb 5 at 15:49

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

From wiki

In genetics, genotoxicity describes the property of chemical agents that damages the genetic information within a cell causing mutations

While some viruses tend to cause mutations, most don't have such a strong mutagenesis effect. As such, they are not really genotoxic. Also, even if a virus is genotoxic, one should definitely not reduce the activity of a virus to its genotoxicity. A virus has a life-cycle and is able to reproduce. It is clearly more than a simple genotoxic chemical agent such as metal chromium.

So, in short

  1. Reducing viruses to their genotoxic effect would be a misrepretentation of what virsues are
  2. Most viruses don't have a strong genotoxic effect and therefore you can not make the claim in the general sense.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.