One of the frustrating things about discussing gain of function research is the vague and inconsistent definitions in play. Does a discussion participant consi

One of the frustrating things about discussing gain of function research is the vague and inconsistent definitions in play. Does a discussion participant consider it to be any application of recombinant DNA/RNA to viable viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, etc.? Or only when the methods are expected to increase pathogenicity, and if so, by how much? Most everyone probably agrees that "the subset of research that enhances a pathogen to make it likely highly transmissible and virulent in humans (enhanced PPP)" [0] warrants either extreme caution or a straightforward ban, but the lower risk threshold that someone considers to demarcate ok / not ok just doesn't come across at all. To illustrate that the definition is both broad and variable: "The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent. Some scientists use the term broadly to refer to any such modification. However, not all research described as GOF entails the same level of risk. For example, research that involves the modification of bacteria to allow production of human insulin, or the altering of the genetic program of immune cells in CAR-T cell therapy to treat cancer generally would be considered low risk" [0]. It's also possible to modify the agent to make it safer while preserving other aspects that need to be studied. For example, creating a model virus that has no pathogenicity, but depends on the Covid spike protein for replication so it can be used to study receptor binding and vaccine evasion safely. I wish we'd collectively chosen a clearer term, like "engineered potentially pandemic pathogenicity", that more closely matches our collective Covid-inspired concerns. Arguments about "gain of function" gives the dangerous stuff cover by mixing it together with innocuous experiments. Lack of clarity makes it easier to synthesize controversy, accidentally or intentionally, by mixing together statements about very different kinds of gain of function work. The Post says they identified 18 projects that "appeared to include gain-of-function experiments"—they should say exactly what risks those projects pose instead of leaving us with merely a vague and sinister implication. [0] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/gain-function-research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens https://www.nih.gov/news-events/gain-function-research-invol...