3 ms·

Thank you for posting. Regarding your answer to 8, how important is gain of function research in the virology eco-system, is there sufficient reason amongst th

Thank you for posting. Regarding your answer to 8, how important is gain of function research in the virology eco-system, is there sufficient reason amongst the powers that be within the discipline (that is, well-known researchers, leaders of departments or labs, funders and program managers, etc) to be wary of a funding cut for this research that they might be biased in dismissing the idea of a lab leak? My analogy is in particle physics, the idea of supersymmetry is incredibly popular amongst the super start researchers, heads of parts of CERN, funding agencies, etc, that very few in the field are willing to admit the lack of evidence for supersymmetry at the LHC is in fact a crisis for the field after how many billions have been spent on the supercollider. My question is, is gain of function that important or popular in the field of virology? Why can't they just admit it's dangerous and chuck it, will enough of them suffer if they were to do so?

ayjchan 4y ago
The vast majority of virologists are not working on gain-of-function research or with potential pandemic pathogens, but this type of research has some very influential backers who control significant sources of funding in virology and infectious diseases. This makes it very awkward and professionally risky for virologists to say that the top leaders in their field advocated for research that might have caused this pandemic and taken millions of lives globally. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) has been reconvened this year to review US government policies on dual use research of concern (DURC) and research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP/P3CO). Their public meeting is available here: https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=44823 https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=44823 Please also see my thread on it: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1499035660627419139 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1499035660627419139 There is another public engagement session next week. Details here: https://osp.od.nih.gov/event/virtual-stakeholder-engagement-meeting-on-usg-policies/?instance_id=103 https://osp.od.nih.gov/event/virtual-stakeholder-engagement-... Based on these sessions and the history of the NSABB, I'm not confident that they will recommend measures to make this type of research more transparent or even safer.
harishcs 4y ago
The elephant in the room, as far as support for GOFROC (gain of function research of concern) goes, is Fauci. Several leading biologists (Marc Lipsitch, David Relman and others) have argued for years that the risk/reward ratio for GOFROC is too high to justify it. But it had to go all the way to Obama for Fauci to change course. Obama imposed a 3-year moratorium from 2014-17, which was lifted soon after he left office. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor...
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  To me the fact that top officials in both the US and China have a likely interest in not investigating lab origins goes a long way to show why this hasn’t been done. And why no other country can get the ball rolling on it, these are the two most powerful countries in the world. IMO it’s likely no one knows where this virus came from right now. but it could well be a lab, but anyone who could potentially investigate this theory absolutely does not want to in case it turns out it was.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    It's even worse. If you look at that Lancet Letter scandal, you'll find for example Christian Drosten as a signatory, who was the expert with the most influence over the German government until recently. Even after the Daszak conflict of interest was discovered, despite the declaration of no conflict of interest, none of them ever retracted it or even apologized. Even more, it was later revealed the letter had actually been authored by Daszak himself, as the pretend lead author Charles Calisher himself admitted. Calisher is a long retired professor born in 1936 who at this point may or may not understand what's going on. To his credit at least he told the truth when journalists questioned him. It looks like Daszak used his name to distract from his authorship. The strategy worked too, at first. What's shocking is that none of them have faced any consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)
    - 4y ago

ayjchan 4y ago

The vast majority of virologists are not working on gain-of-function research or with potential pandemic pathogens, but this type of research has some very influential backers who control significant sources of funding in virology and infectious diseases. This makes it very awkward and professionally risky for virologists to say that the top leaders in their field advocated for research that might have caused this pandemic and taken millions of lives globally. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) has been reconvened this year to review US government policies on dual use research of concern (DURC) and research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP/P3CO). Their public meeting is available here: https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=44823 https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=44823 Please also see my thread on it: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1499035660627419139 https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1499035660627419139 There is another public engagement session next week. Details here: https://osp.od.nih.gov/event/virtual-stakeholder-engagement-meeting-on-usg-policies/?instance_id=103 https://osp.od.nih.gov/event/virtual-stakeholder-engagement-... Based on these sessions and the history of the NSABB, I'm not confident that they will recommend measures to make this type of research more transparent or even safer.

harishcs 4y ago

The elephant in the room, as far as support for GOFROC (gain of function research of concern) goes, is Fauci. Several leading biologists (Marc Lipsitch, David Relman and others) have argued for years that the risk/reward ratio for GOFROC is too high to justify it. But it had to go all the way to Obama for Fauci to change course. Obama imposed a 3-year moratorium from 2014-17, which was lifted soon after he left office. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor...

cloutchaser 4y ago
To me the fact that top officials in both the US and China have a likely interest in not investigating lab origins goes a long way to show why this hasn’t been done. And why no other country can get the ball rolling on it, these are the two most powerful countries in the world. IMO it’s likely no one knows where this virus came from right now. but it could well be a lab, but anyone who could potentially investigate this theory absolutely does not want to in case it turns out it was.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  It's even worse. If you look at that Lancet Letter scandal, you'll find for example Christian Drosten as a signatory, who was the expert with the most influence over the German government until recently. Even after the Daszak conflict of interest was discovered, despite the declaration of no conflict of interest, none of them ever retracted it or even apologized. Even more, it was later revealed the letter had actually been authored by Daszak himself, as the pretend lead author Charles Calisher himself admitted. Calisher is a long retired professor born in 1936 who at this point may or may not understand what's going on. To his credit at least he told the truth when journalists questioned him. It looks like Daszak used his name to distract from his authorship. The strategy worked too, at first. What's shocking is that none of them have faced any consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)
  - 4y ago