5 ms·

Is this actually the case? This paper [1] seems to indicate that there are multiple types of gain-of-function research, not just an increase in virulence. In

Is this actually the case? This paper [1] seems to indicate that there are multiple types of gain-of-function research, not just an increase in virulence. In fact, the paper specifically discusses “transmissibility”, which would seem to support the argument of the paper under discussion: “In short, SARS-CoV-2 is possessed of dual action capability. In this paper we argue that the likelihood of this being the result of natural processes is very small” [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

sudosysgen 6y ago
Sure. The issue is that there would have to be gain-of-function research to reduce virulence and (maybe, it's not entirely clear) to increase transmissivity. There is no evidence for that AFAIK, and I don't understand why a lab would do a gain of function experiment and reduce function instead.
- poof131 6y ago
  It strikes me as reducing virulence would be a responsible first step before conducting research on increasing transmissivity of a deadly virus.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Do you have the study where they would have reduced virulence for these reasons? Because reducing the virulence of a virus to such a level that a large part of the population don't even get any symptoms seems odd to say the least. Also, it's not even clear that COVID-19 is that much more infectious (or at all) than SARS, it seems to me that its explained well enough by so many people brushing it off or not even realizing they have it because it's so much less severe.
    - jakeogh 6y ago
      Reasons a [malicious|altruistic] actor might do that: You have the ability to use it to induce fear and therefore behavioral changes. Positive cases are valuable. Plausible deniability. Mistakes. Response. Testing (as parent pointed out).
- zxcmx 6y ago
  Assume it's academic research. Introducing feature X (regardless of effect) allows you to study X. You do it to learn more about X, not because you particularly want to engineer something more virulent or lethal.
  - jkhdigital 6y ago
    Yes, exactly, which is discussed in the paper. The goal of gain of function research isn’t about “let’s make viruses that do crazy shit,” it’s a method of hypothesis testing. When you can successfully add (or remove) stuff then you can test hypotheses that would otherwise not be testable.
- SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
  Reduce virulence compared to what? SARS-1? But they are not talking about SARS-1, they actually were talking about some other random bat viruses, which have zero virulence in humans.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Au contraire, you would expect random bat viruses to be incredibly virulent in humans.
    - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
      Really? How is that? Proof? Link?
      - snypher 6y ago
        This research seems relevant; >Our key result is that hosts most closely related to humans harbour zoonoses of lower impact in terms of morbidity and mortality, while the most distantly related hosts—in particular, order Chiroptera (bats)—harbour highly virulent zoonoses with a lower capacity for endemic establishment in human hosts. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2019.0296 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...
        SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        True, but to be dangerous the have to pass cross species barrier, before that event, virulence is exactly zero. So, random bat viruses have zero virulence in people.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Sure. The issue is that there would have to be gain-of-function research to reduce virulence and (maybe, it's not entirely clear) to increase transmissivity. There is no evidence for that AFAIK, and I don't understand why a lab would do a gain of function experiment and reduce function instead.

poof131 6y ago
It strikes me as reducing virulence would be a responsible first step before conducting research on increasing transmissivity of a deadly virus.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Do you have the study where they would have reduced virulence for these reasons? Because reducing the virulence of a virus to such a level that a large part of the population don't even get any symptoms seems odd to say the least. Also, it's not even clear that COVID-19 is that much more infectious (or at all) than SARS, it seems to me that its explained well enough by so many people brushing it off or not even realizing they have it because it's so much less severe.
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    Reasons a [malicious|altruistic] actor might do that: You have the ability to use it to induce fear and therefore behavioral changes. Positive cases are valuable. Plausible deniability. Mistakes. Response. Testing (as parent pointed out).
zxcmx 6y ago
Assume it's academic research. Introducing feature X (regardless of effect) allows you to study X. You do it to learn more about X, not because you particularly want to engineer something more virulent or lethal.
- jkhdigital 6y ago
  Yes, exactly, which is discussed in the paper. The goal of gain of function research isn’t about “let’s make viruses that do crazy shit,” it’s a method of hypothesis testing. When you can successfully add (or remove) stuff then you can test hypotheses that would otherwise not be testable.
SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
Reduce virulence compared to what? SARS-1? But they are not talking about SARS-1, they actually were talking about some other random bat viruses, which have zero virulence in humans.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Au contraire, you would expect random bat viruses to be incredibly virulent in humans.
  - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
    Really? How is that? Proof? Link?
    - snypher 6y ago
      This research seems relevant; >Our key result is that hosts most closely related to humans harbour zoonoses of lower impact in terms of morbidity and mortality, while the most distantly related hosts—in particular, order Chiroptera (bats)—harbour highly virulent zoonoses with a lower capacity for endemic establishment in human hosts. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2019.0296 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.201...
      - SomeoneFromCA 6y ago
        True, but to be dangerous the have to pass cross species barrier, before that event, virulence is exactly zero. So, random bat viruses have zero virulence in people.