> they were running controversial experiments to find out how they might mutate to become more infectious to humans. This “gain-of-function” work is described i

> they were running controversial experiments to find out how they might mutate to become more infectious to humans. This “gain-of-function” work is described in papers released by the WIV between 2015 and 2017, scientists say. Shi’s team combined snippets of different coronaviruses to see if they could be made more transmissible in what they called “virus infectivity experiments”. It would be nice if they cited the papers, because I think they're actually talking about experiments done in North Carolina, not in Wuhan. For example, there's this paper from 2016,[1] based on work done in Ralph Baric's lab at UNC. The paper described research done on a viral strain discovered by researchers from Wuhan (WIV1 stands for "Wuhan Institute of Virology 1"), but the actual gain-of-function experiments were done in the North Carolina. > Ebright alleges, however, that the type of work required to create Covid-19 from RaTG13 was “identical” to work the laboratory had done in the past. “The very same techniques, the very same experimental strategies using RaTG13 as the starting point, would yield a virus essentially identical to Sars-Cov-2.” The gain-of-function research described in paper [1] would not create anything "identical" or even remotely similar to SARS-CoV-2. It created a chimeric virus that is completely different from anything found in the wild. If that virus were to escape, it would be instantly recognizable as something artificial. Richard Ebright is not a virologist. He's one of the only biologists with any sort of semi-respectable position pushing the lab leak theory. But from discussions with actual virologists, they're pretty disdainful of him. They think he doesn't know what he's talking about, and is taking advantage of the moment to further his crusade against gain-of-function research (he's been arguing against it for years). He's been giving non-stop interviews with news media for months. Basically any article pushing the lab leak theory will quote him. But he has no actual expertise in virology, and the specific claim he's making here about gain-of-function research is false. 1. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/03/11/1517719113 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/03/11/1517719113