4 ms·

Author here. Happy to be listening in on some of the thoughts of HN. If you have a specific question or thought feel free to AMA.

jollybean 5y ago
Do you think your thesis would be controversial within the Scientific Community, at least if discussions were to be had in public? Does the Scientific community have enough self-awareness about this to do something about it, and are calls for 'creating new viruses' being actively made and addressed?
- erikhoel 5y ago
  I actually think most working scientists agree about The Science Game. Almost everyone thinks of things this way in their darker moments, or talks among other scientists like that, although it is a bit of an "open secret." For gain-of-function research in particular, I don't imagine it will survive this news cycle. It has been banned for periods of time before (I believe last ban ended in 2017) and there's almost no way it doesn't get and likely stay banned, at least in the USA.
toomim 5y ago
What path in life led you to write articles like this? If you are still a practicing scientist, do you fear any repercussions to speaking against the community like this?
sdeep27 5y ago
Great article, I think an important one as well. The 'Science Game', really just a misalignment of incentives, seems to be at the core of other issues in science research - the replication problem in social sciences comes to mind (for me, as a non-academic). What do you see as possible solution(s) to this problem?
dredmorbius 5y ago
Technical site nit: your links are very hard to see as styled even on a colour / emissive display. On my e-ink reader, they're impossible. Note sure if that's your choice or Substack's, but either way, it could stand improvement. (Unfortunately, styling annoyances stand between content and topical response and criticism.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27412599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27412599
jakobnissen 5y ago
I'm a post doc virology researcher whose gain of function research is, ironically, delayed by covid. I think you're spot on with the description of the Science Game. It's depressing, and I'm considering leaving academia because I can't stand the perverse incentive structures. I think you're misguided with respect to why gain of function research is done. The idea that we're doing gain of function in order to generate more stuff to study is sort of right, but missing the point. It's not that we've run out of natural stuff to study. We have plenty of natural viruses to study. It's instead that gain of function is a great way to practically test some hypotheses. Imagine you have a theory that property X of a virus enables it to replicate in humans. You can remove property X from an existing virus, but it's even more convincing if you can predict what adding property X to a different virus will do. Also I would argue that "gain of function research" is too broad a term to be useful for making policy. It's like discussing whether "nuclear physics" is dangerous. Building nuclear weapons is dangerous, making a particle accelerator isn't.
recursivedoubts 5y ago
Why do you assert that there is no chance this was intentionally leaked?

jollybean 5y ago

Do you think your thesis would be controversial within the Scientific Community, at least if discussions were to be had in public? Does the Scientific community have enough self-awareness about this to do something about it, and are calls for 'creating new viruses' being actively made and addressed?

erikhoel 5y ago
I actually think most working scientists agree about The Science Game. Almost everyone thinks of things this way in their darker moments, or talks among other scientists like that, although it is a bit of an "open secret." For gain-of-function research in particular, I don't imagine it will survive this news cycle. It has been banned for periods of time before (I believe last ban ended in 2017) and there's almost no way it doesn't get and likely stay banned, at least in the USA.

toomim 5y ago

What path in life led you to write articles like this? If you are still a practicing scientist, do you fear any repercussions to speaking against the community like this?

sdeep27 5y ago

Great article, I think an important one as well. The 'Science Game', really just a misalignment of incentives, seems to be at the core of other issues in science research - the replication problem in social sciences comes to mind (for me, as a non-academic). What do you see as possible solution(s) to this problem?

dredmorbius 5y ago

Technical site nit: your links are very hard to see as styled even on a colour / emissive display. On my e-ink reader, they're impossible. Note sure if that's your choice or Substack's, but either way, it could stand improvement. (Unfortunately, styling annoyances stand between content and topical response and criticism.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27412599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27412599

jakobnissen 5y ago

I'm a post doc virology researcher whose gain of function research is, ironically, delayed by covid. I think you're spot on with the description of the Science Game. It's depressing, and I'm considering leaving academia because I can't stand the perverse incentive structures. I think you're misguided with respect to why gain of function research is done. The idea that we're doing gain of function in order to generate more stuff to study is sort of right, but missing the point. It's not that we've run out of natural stuff to study. We have plenty of natural viruses to study. It's instead that gain of function is a great way to practically test some hypotheses. Imagine you have a theory that property X of a virus enables it to replicate in humans. You can remove property X from an existing virus, but it's even more convincing if you can predict what adding property X to a different virus will do. Also I would argue that "gain of function research" is too broad a term to be useful for making policy. It's like discussing whether "nuclear physics" is dangerous. Building nuclear weapons is dangerous, making a particle accelerator isn't.

recursivedoubts 5y ago

Why do you assert that there is no chance this was intentionally leaked?