3 ms·

Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while. Here's a cite[1] from 2018 from Marc Lipsitch, who would be on mos

Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while. Here's a cite[1] from 2018 from Marc Lipsitch, who would be on most people's top ten list of trusted virologists on Covid. He's also one of the signatories of the letter calling for investigation[2]. I think it's possible to split out the question of bioresearch risks from Covid origins. If it was a lab leak, obviously we should regulate those risks better, but we should also do more to mitigate zoonotic spillover, because we have tons of evidence that happens and causes damage. If it wasn't lab leak, we should do more to mitigate spillover, but it would also be a good idea to be more careful about biosafety. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7119956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7119956/ [2]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1

wombatmobile 5y ago
> Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while The quotation you cite from Lipitsch doesn't validate your comment. He wasn't "questioning gain of function research". He was calling for greater oversight over gain of function research and for more initiatives to try to limit the damage potential of zoonotic spillover. If anything, Lipitsch was upholding the value of gain of function research, because he believes scientists should do everything possible to try to prevent pandemics.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  Huh? The title of the piece is "Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?" The introduction specifically criticizes entire categories of GoF research, stating that it goes against the consensus view of many virologists. How is that not "questioning?" Lipsitch has been consistently critical in other fora too, including a quote in a Science piece[1], a call for a debate[2], and other communications. Now, one thing that is going on in a lot of the discussion (and which makes reasoned discourse harder) is that many people mean different things when talking about "gain of function." For some, it's anything that creates a pathogen that's potentially infectious to humans, which potentially covers a lot of experiments to test transmissibility and other factors. For others, it has to be specifically engineering to increase transmissibility or virulence [3]. That can lead to confusion, for example the debate about whether Fauci's denial that the NIAID funded GoF research was honest. I very carefully check my sources when posting, but am sure I make mistakes. When I do, I'm happy to be corrected. But this seems a very odd thing to call me out for. [1]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/exclusive-controversial-experiments-make-bird-flu-more-risky-poised-resume https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/exclusive-controvers... [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269283247_Gain-of-function_experiments_Time_for_a_real_debate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269283247_Gain-of-f... [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/
  - wombatmobile 5y ago
    Oh I see. I didn't follow your links, rather I thought your second para was the quote. "I think it's possible to split out the question of bioresearch risks from Covid origins. If it was a lab leak, obviously we should regulate those risks better, but we should also do more to mitigate zoonotic spillover, because we have tons of evidence that happens and causes damage. If it wasn't lab leak, we should do more to mitigate spillover, but it would also be a good idea to be more careful about biosafety."
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      Nope, apologies if there is any confusion. That's just my opinion. I'm basically trying to make the point that this overfocus on origins is more of a political question than one with direct public health impact.
      - wombatmobile 5y ago
        Yes, I can see from your comment that you are interested in public health. The over focus on origin is clearly a proxy for something else.
DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
Lipsitch is an epidemiologist, not a virologist.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  You are right, thanks for the correction!
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> If it was a lab leak, obviously we should regulate those risks better, but we should also do more to mitigate zoonotic spillover > If it wasn't lab leak, we should do more to mitigate spillover, but it would also be a good idea to be more careful about biosafety This seems like a roundabout way to endorse Matt Yglesias' view that there are basically no implications to the question "was it a lab leak?"
- raphlinus 5y ago
  Very little in the way of public health implications. Quite a bit in terms of geopolitical implications. I do think people confuse the two a fair amount.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    If there are no practical implications, why would there be political implications? You don't usually premise your political stances on the foundation that "something irrelevant happened".

wombatmobile 5y ago

> Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while The quotation you cite from Lipitsch doesn't validate your comment. He wasn't "questioning gain of function research". He was calling for greater oversight over gain of function research and for more initiatives to try to limit the damage potential of zoonotic spillover. If anything, Lipitsch was upholding the value of gain of function research, because he believes scientists should do everything possible to try to prevent pandemics.

raphlinus 5y ago
Huh? The title of the piece is "Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?" The introduction specifically criticizes entire categories of GoF research, stating that it goes against the consensus view of many virologists. How is that not "questioning?" Lipsitch has been consistently critical in other fora too, including a quote in a Science piece[1], a call for a debate[2], and other communications. Now, one thing that is going on in a lot of the discussion (and which makes reasoned discourse harder) is that many people mean different things when talking about "gain of function." For some, it's anything that creates a pathogen that's potentially infectious to humans, which potentially covers a lot of experiments to test transmissibility and other factors. For others, it has to be specifically engineering to increase transmissibility or virulence [3]. That can lead to confusion, for example the debate about whether Fauci's denial that the NIAID funded GoF research was honest. I very carefully check my sources when posting, but am sure I make mistakes. When I do, I'm happy to be corrected. But this seems a very odd thing to call me out for. [1]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/exclusive-controversial-experiments-make-bird-flu-more-risky-poised-resume https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/exclusive-controvers... [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269283247_Gain-of-function_experiments_Time_for_a_real_debate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269283247_Gain-of-f... [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  Oh I see. I didn't follow your links, rather I thought your second para was the quote. "I think it's possible to split out the question of bioresearch risks from Covid origins. If it was a lab leak, obviously we should regulate those risks better, but we should also do more to mitigate zoonotic spillover, because we have tons of evidence that happens and causes damage. If it wasn't lab leak, we should do more to mitigate spillover, but it would also be a good idea to be more careful about biosafety."
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    Nope, apologies if there is any confusion. That's just my opinion. I'm basically trying to make the point that this overfocus on origins is more of a political question than one with direct public health impact.
    - wombatmobile 5y ago
      Yes, I can see from your comment that you are interested in public health. The over focus on origin is clearly a proxy for something else.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

Lipsitch is an epidemiologist, not a virologist.

raphlinus 5y ago
You are right, thanks for the correction!

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> If it was a lab leak, obviously we should regulate those risks better, but we should also do more to mitigate zoonotic spillover > If it wasn't lab leak, we should do more to mitigate spillover, but it would also be a good idea to be more careful about biosafety This seems like a roundabout way to endorse Matt Yglesias' view that there are basically no implications to the question "was it a lab leak?"

raphlinus 5y ago
Very little in the way of public health implications. Quite a bit in terms of geopolitical implications. I do think people confuse the two a fair amount.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  If there are no practical implications, why would there be political implications? You don't usually premise your political stances on the foundation that "something irrelevant happened".