4 ms·
“It’s for the ‘greater good’, therefore it’s fine. What could go wrong?”
by travisparker 5y ago
“It’s for the ‘greater good’, therefore it’s fine. What could go wrong?”
- _red 5y agoHopefully no one ever funds "gain of function research" using this corpus of data...
- cblconfederate 5y agoWhat's the better alternative? Halt science as if it's the middle ages?
- _red 5y agoMaybe best to not use public funds to create bio-weapons to great reset the plebs with?
- jessriedel 5y agoYou don't have to halt science to decide that the benefits of gain-of-function research is not worth the risk. We don't test nuclear weapons anymore either.
- 7steps2much 5y agoBecause "we" arrived at a point where they are, arguably, good enough. Not to mention that "others" still do test them. See north korea for example.
- jessriedel 5y agoOur knowledge of pathogens is not good enough. See the current pandemic. The question is whether the net benefit of this sort of research, once the risk are properly accounted for, is larger than the benefit we could get with alternative research methods. The fact that someone else is taking huge risks of unleashing another pandemic is not a good reason for us to do so.
- krob 5y agoGain of function? You realize that mother nature is far more sophisticated than us humans. She has manufactured many plagues over the eons. we will likely never come up with viruses that have the kind of crazy cascading systemic building block chaos causing destruction in the human body. Radiation doesn't count because we just figured out we could harness it, but we have very little control over that. Viruses make ionic radiation look like child's play as just like ionizing radiation, studying the thing could kill you within days/weeks/months. You have a voodoo science belief that Dr Evil might create the next real zombie, only @9pm on Fox.
- jessriedel 5y agoYour lack of concern for gain-of-function research is not shared by experts in the field. They almost uniformly appreciate that that there is a risk of creating a pandemic that would be unlikely to arise naturally, and they take strong (but, imo, not nearly strong enough) safety steps to prevent it. Nature generally didn't develop wheels or nukes either, but humans did and use them to great effect.
- epistasis 5y agoIt's really funny how media coverage, combined with all the conspiracy-inducing effects of a global pandemic, have made the concept of "gain of function research" into something that is somehow combinable with 23andMe's database. I haven't been following much of the media coverage of things like this, or the social media rumor mills, but a comment like that makes it clear that public perception is going way off kilter. And that mismatch between public perception and reality is exactly what fuels bad policy in governments.
- mataug 5y agoThere's no way for insurance companies to buy this data and discriminate against people to improve their bottom line right ?!
- BitwiseFool 5y agoI believe this was passed in response to such concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim... "The act bars the use of genetic information in health insurance and employment: it prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to developing a disease in the future, and it bars employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions."
- myself248 5y agoHow abstracted-away does it have to be? Say one of the credit agencies bought 23andme, and your genetic predispositions became just one factor in a new "life score". Do we honestly believe the law would consider the whole score tainted and unusable for all the named purposes? Would it have teeth to do anything about it? Furthermore, it's easy to end-run around it like they've done with car insurance. Instead of raising the rates of privacy-conscious drivers, we'll raise everyone's rates and then offer "discounts" to people willing to submit to tracking. There, perfectly legal!