3 ms·

> is far cheaper than a global pandemic It’s hard to overstate the case here. Even a tiny chance for a proposed research project to causing something like covi

> is far cheaper than a global pandemic It’s hard to overstate the case here. Even a tiny chance for a proposed research project to causing something like covid 19 has a gigantic risk adjusted cost and should only have been undertaken if the expected results were likewise enormously beneficial. Something seems off with the cost benefit analysis in these laboratories.

XorNot 5y ago
Well sure but: (1) this pandemic has not been shown to be caused by gain-of-function research and probably wasn't. (2) why do you think scientists do gain-of-function research? It's to try and prevent pandemics by finding viruses which might be dangerous. So if there's a problem it's really (3): we haven't consistently funded pandemic preparedness, in particular there needs to be an established process to clinical trial and test new vaccines against identified "risky" viral strains in the wild, ideally with a platform perspective that we can have confidence can be rapidly modified to get a new vaccine out the door.
snowwrestler 5y ago
The whole point of research like this is to better understand a naturally occurring risk of disease. Without the work to understand in detail how similar coronaviruses infect humans cells, there is no way Moderna and BioNTech could have turned around their mRNA vaccine candidates as fast as they did. When looking at cost-benefit analysis you have to understand that the probability of a naturally occurring human infectious disease capable of causing a pandemic is 100% over a long enough time span. Therefore the possibility of a lab leak can add little marginal risk over that same period of time. Whereas the understanding that comes from research will confer benefits no matter the origin of the disease. Labs should be as secure as possible: yes. But there is a huge opportunity cost to saying “don’t work with human infectious diseases any more.”
- landemva 5y ago
  If it adds little marginal risk, why bother with any secure labs? Following your "gonna happen eventually", let the scientists play with their toys under tents in the public square.
  - snowwrestler 5y ago
    If you run a secure lab, you don’t accelerate the onset of a potential pandemic. If you run an insecure lab, you might accelerate the onset, which is bad. My point is that ceasing research entirely does not rule out a future pandemic, but it certainly would harm our ability to respond to a future pandemic.
- roca 5y ago
  > Without the work to understand in detail how similar coronaviruses infect humans cells, there is no way Moderna and BioNTech could have turned around their mRNA vaccine candidates as fast as they did. Can you provide a reference for this?
  - bradleyjg 5y ago
    I’d also like some evidence for this. If moderna or biontech researcher were specifically using knowledge from gain of function research that would shift my view on the cost/benefit analysis. So far all I’ve seen is a bunch of handwaving about “advancing the science.”

XorNot 5y ago

Well sure but: (1) this pandemic has not been shown to be caused by gain-of-function research and probably wasn't. (2) why do you think scientists do gain-of-function research? It's to try and prevent pandemics by finding viruses which might be dangerous. So if there's a problem it's really (3): we haven't consistently funded pandemic preparedness, in particular there needs to be an established process to clinical trial and test new vaccines against identified "risky" viral strains in the wild, ideally with a platform perspective that we can have confidence can be rapidly modified to get a new vaccine out the door.

snowwrestler 5y ago

The whole point of research like this is to better understand a naturally occurring risk of disease. Without the work to understand in detail how similar coronaviruses infect humans cells, there is no way Moderna and BioNTech could have turned around their mRNA vaccine candidates as fast as they did. When looking at cost-benefit analysis you have to understand that the probability of a naturally occurring human infectious disease capable of causing a pandemic is 100% over a long enough time span. Therefore the possibility of a lab leak can add little marginal risk over that same period of time. Whereas the understanding that comes from research will confer benefits no matter the origin of the disease. Labs should be as secure as possible: yes. But there is a huge opportunity cost to saying “don’t work with human infectious diseases any more.”

landemva 5y ago
If it adds little marginal risk, why bother with any secure labs? Following your "gonna happen eventually", let the scientists play with their toys under tents in the public square.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  If you run a secure lab, you don’t accelerate the onset of a potential pandemic. If you run an insecure lab, you might accelerate the onset, which is bad. My point is that ceasing research entirely does not rule out a future pandemic, but it certainly would harm our ability to respond to a future pandemic.
roca 5y ago
> Without the work to understand in detail how similar coronaviruses infect humans cells, there is no way Moderna and BioNTech could have turned around their mRNA vaccine candidates as fast as they did. Can you provide a reference for this?
- bradleyjg 5y ago
  I’d also like some evidence for this. If moderna or biontech researcher were specifically using knowledge from gain of function research that would shift my view on the cost/benefit analysis. So far all I’ve seen is a bunch of handwaving about “advancing the science.”