4 ms·

Even if "we" figure out how the animal-jump can occur, it's not like "we" can stop it or even predict it. And the probability that what is created in a lab wil

Even if "we" figure out how the animal-jump can occur, it's not like "we" can stop it or even predict it. And the probability that what is created in a lab will be close enough to what is naturally occurring in nature to be useful are none to zero.

fn-mote 5y ago
> Even if "we" figure out how the animal-jump can occur, it's not like "we" can stop it or even predict it. The first step is understanding. Until you understand how it happens, statements about whether or not you can prevent it do not make much sense to me. For example: imagine you have not yet discovered that the unwashed hands of doctors are transmitting disease in a hospital. You might make a statement very similar to yours about how "even if we can figure out how people get sick, it's not like we can stop it".
- nicoburns 5y ago
  That's true, but whether the understanding is worth the risk is questionable. It seems likely that we've managed to cause rather than prevent a pandemic with this particular research.
- mattcwilson 5y ago
  I’m not sure how realistic your example is. Prior to discovering handwashing, were scientists doing things they knew had the potential to get literally everyone morbidly sick, just to try figuring out how it worked?
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  > The first step is understanding. This is a slogan with no logical value. > Until you understand how it happens, statements about whether or not you can prevent it do not make much sense to me. Except we do understand. It seems to me that you are lacking is basic scientific knowledge. Virus mutates naturally and become more virulent due to evolution. > For example: imagine you have not yet discovered that the unwashed hands of doctors are transmitting disease in a hospital. You might make a statement very similar to yours about how "even if we can figure out how people get sick, it's not like we can stop it". We can control our hands, we can't control viruses in nature.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  The problem is, there's no real clinical benefit that comes out of gain of function research. Virologists claim that there is, but they can't point to examples of where it helped us actually treat or prevent something. Basically they're creating bigger and bigger fires and claiming that doing so somehow helps firefighters. Next we'll have nuclear weapons researchers claiming that higher yields are good to know about so we can work out how to protect against stronger explosions.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    The potential benefit is developing novel viruses. That's it. They will likely be infectious. Hopefully, ahem, your operating protocols prevent the release of that virus and you study it in model organisms to figure out metabolic pathways to fight it before such a real virus occurs naturally.
    - bigDinosaur 5y ago
      I suppose I'm operating from the belief that everyone cares about preventing possible virologic doomsday weapons. I'm sure quite a few people have not the slightest concern.
  - drran 5y ago
    So, we need to do more research until we will find an ultimate weapon against viruses. As an alternative, we need to stop development of new viruses, both naturally and in labs, including Russian and North Korean labs.

fn-mote 5y ago

> Even if "we" figure out how the animal-jump can occur, it's not like "we" can stop it or even predict it. The first step is understanding. Until you understand how it happens, statements about whether or not you can prevent it do not make much sense to me. For example: imagine you have not yet discovered that the unwashed hands of doctors are transmitting disease in a hospital. You might make a statement very similar to yours about how "even if we can figure out how people get sick, it's not like we can stop it".

nicoburns 5y ago
That's true, but whether the understanding is worth the risk is questionable. It seems likely that we've managed to cause rather than prevent a pandemic with this particular research.
mattcwilson 5y ago
I’m not sure how realistic your example is. Prior to discovering handwashing, were scientists doing things they knew had the potential to get literally everyone morbidly sick, just to try figuring out how it worked?
TeeMassive 5y ago
> The first step is understanding. This is a slogan with no logical value. > Until you understand how it happens, statements about whether or not you can prevent it do not make much sense to me. Except we do understand. It seems to me that you are lacking is basic scientific knowledge. Virus mutates naturally and become more virulent due to evolution. > For example: imagine you have not yet discovered that the unwashed hands of doctors are transmitting disease in a hospital. You might make a statement very similar to yours about how "even if we can figure out how people get sick, it's not like we can stop it". We can control our hands, we can't control viruses in nature.
bigDinosaur 5y ago
The problem is, there's no real clinical benefit that comes out of gain of function research. Virologists claim that there is, but they can't point to examples of where it helped us actually treat or prevent something. Basically they're creating bigger and bigger fires and claiming that doing so somehow helps firefighters. Next we'll have nuclear weapons researchers claiming that higher yields are good to know about so we can work out how to protect against stronger explosions.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  The potential benefit is developing novel viruses. That's it. They will likely be infectious. Hopefully, ahem, your operating protocols prevent the release of that virus and you study it in model organisms to figure out metabolic pathways to fight it before such a real virus occurs naturally.
  - bigDinosaur 5y ago
    I suppose I'm operating from the belief that everyone cares about preventing possible virologic doomsday weapons. I'm sure quite a few people have not the slightest concern.
- drran 5y ago
  So, we need to do more research until we will find an ultimate weapon against viruses. As an alternative, we need to stop development of new viruses, both naturally and in labs, including Russian and North Korean labs.