4 ms·

Also noteworthy is Dr. Fauci has been a long time proponent and sponsor of gain of function experiments as head of the NIAID, the infectious diseases arm of the

Also noteworthy is Dr. Fauci has been a long time proponent and sponsor of gain of function experiments as head of the NIAID, the infectious diseases arm of the NIH.[1] After a few different US lab leaks involving anthrax, smallpox, and avian flu in 2014 the Obama administration put a ban on the fuding of gain of function research.[2] The ban was eventually overturned in 2018.[3] [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-anthrax-labs-analysis/how-to-fix-u-s-biosecurity-leaks-close-some-labs-idUSKBN0FJ0BC20140714 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-anthrax-labs-analysis... [3]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

justnotworthit 6y ago
I don't get why supporters of GoF experiments with CoV in Wuhan aren't shouting from the rooftops that (1) They were right to predict the danger of a CoV originating from that area of the world and that (2) their research, years in the making, is thankfully (despite opposition's cries of danger) here to protect us. Instead, I can't find anything about the latest years of their research.
- mgamache 6y ago
  good point. the silence is deafening. They should be lobbying for more money...
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  >Instead, I can't find anything about the latest years of their research. So, in other words, there is no evidence that GoF research is "here to protect us"?
shireboy 6y ago
I'm assuming justification for GoF research wasn't "we want to make a bioweapon". What are the arguments in favor of this type of research?
- cameldrv 6y ago
  The specific thing that they said they were trying to do was predict emerging pathogens and develop treatments and potentially vaccines for them in advance of them actually making a zoonotic jump. They were creating chimeric Coronaviruses to simulate natural recombination events, then infecting humanized mice with them to assess their potential for human emergence.
  - mgamache 6y ago
    Right, playing with fire, by creating an environment that would hyper-evolve virus better than random natural species interactions.
    - cameldrv 6y ago
      SARS-CoV-2 is a really contagious virus, but as long as the biosecurity is perfect, there is no risk.
      - mgamache 6y ago
        As long as biosecurity evolves humans it will not be perfect.
      - loveistheanswer 6y ago
        >long as the biosecurity is perfect There is no such thing as 100% security.
  - jbritton 6y ago
    Does any of this research actually matter with the technology we now have? We can sequence a virus. We were able to build a vaccine in one day based upon the sequence. One thing I don’t understand is how the spike protein was identified as the important piece. Was this done by diffing sequences against other coronaviruses? I’m bothered by the fact that GOF research was banned in the USA, and then the NIH setup funding for it in Wuhan. I think the need and safety of this research should come under serious scrutiny.

justnotworthit 6y ago

I don't get why supporters of GoF experiments with CoV in Wuhan aren't shouting from the rooftops that (1) They were right to predict the danger of a CoV originating from that area of the world and that (2) their research, years in the making, is thankfully (despite opposition's cries of danger) here to protect us. Instead, I can't find anything about the latest years of their research.

mgamache 6y ago
good point. the silence is deafening. They should be lobbying for more money...
loveistheanswer 6y ago
>Instead, I can't find anything about the latest years of their research. So, in other words, there is no evidence that GoF research is "here to protect us"?

shireboy 6y ago

I'm assuming justification for GoF research wasn't "we want to make a bioweapon". What are the arguments in favor of this type of research?

cameldrv 6y ago
The specific thing that they said they were trying to do was predict emerging pathogens and develop treatments and potentially vaccines for them in advance of them actually making a zoonotic jump. They were creating chimeric Coronaviruses to simulate natural recombination events, then infecting humanized mice with them to assess their potential for human emergence.
- mgamache 6y ago
  Right, playing with fire, by creating an environment that would hyper-evolve virus better than random natural species interactions.
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    SARS-CoV-2 is a really contagious virus, but as long as the biosecurity is perfect, there is no risk.
    - mgamache 6y ago
      As long as biosecurity evolves humans it will not be perfect.
    - loveistheanswer 6y ago
      >long as the biosecurity is perfect There is no such thing as 100% security.
- jbritton 6y ago
  Does any of this research actually matter with the technology we now have? We can sequence a virus. We were able to build a vaccine in one day based upon the sequence. One thing I don’t understand is how the spike protein was identified as the important piece. Was this done by diffing sequences against other coronaviruses? I’m bothered by the fact that GOF research was banned in the USA, and then the NIH setup funding for it in Wuhan. I think the need and safety of this research should come under serious scrutiny.