6 ms·

IMHO the real question is why would we do this? Just because we can? Is there a hidden bio arms race we can’t stay away from?

stiiv 4y ago
> The goal of the research was to determine if the mutations in the Omicron spike protein were responsible for this variant’s increased ability to evade the immunity to SARS-2 that humans have built up, and whether the changes led to Omicron’s lower rate of severity.
shadowgovt 4y ago
Yes, but it's not hidden. On the one side of it: humanity, and our ability to explore, comprehend, and modify the reality around us. On the other side of it: naturally-evolved viruses. They have a couple billion years' practice overriding biological countermeasures and massive territory advantage. If we do nothing, odds are they will eventually mutate into something that drops us dead in our tracks or wrecks us slowly, as they have before (smallpox, 1918 flu, HIV). And in our modern, deeply-interconnected world, geographic defenses and population isolation no longer protect us as they did our ancestors. The main tools we have to avoid this are our ability to explore, comprehend, and modify. The capacity to change something and observe how the change affects it is something the viruses cannot do, and arguably our best chance of "outsmarting" them so that when they naturally mutate into a dangerous form, we already have the tools in place to mitigate or disassemble the danger.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Exactly how does modifying the virus help create prevention measures or treatments for it? Please provide real world examples.
photochemsyn 4y ago
The most banal reason is that groups of researchers generally coordinate to set up little bureaucratic power centers within the national research agencies to ensure themselves a steady stream of grants; this in turn allows them to get tenure at their universities (under 'publish or perish' which more practically means 'get your grant renewed or perish' and grant renewal relies on (1) a steady stream of publications and (2) ensuring the federal agency keeps earmarking funds for your area of research). This is all perhaps well and good if you're fighting for funds for studying, say, childhood leukemia, but in this case it's been a major disaster and has almost certainly played a central role in this recent global pandemic. Oops.
hotpotamus 4y ago
Some people get a kick out of 3D printing guns in their garage. Why not apply that to other weapons?
- AzzieElbab 4y ago
  No one is 3d printing ballistic nuclear weapons. Scale matter?
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    If you use weapons-grade plutonium as the feed stock for your 3D printer, you won't live long enough for the scale issues to stop you.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Unlike those who print guns, I don't think virologists are motivated by spite for politicians.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    I don't see any reason there would be correlation in those qualities. But it's more that I think that advances in technology will eventually democratize biological weapons in ways that 3d printing have democratized the production of small arms.
  - muaytimbo 4y ago
    Virologists at academic centers like BU are beholden to their paymasters. Grant-writing and groveling day in and day out. I'm not sure what feelings develop in that endless loop of futility.
arminiusreturns 4y ago
Yes, there is an arms race, an all-arms race of which bio is only a part. I reccomend the following two books, The Sheild of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, and The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade. The revolution in technology has shifted the global array of national security threat models away from just the nation-state. The low barrier to entry to tech like the latest in bio or cyber research means now a single actor with no grouo or state affiliations is now capable of producing some destructive event on a national or even global scale. On the backend, this is one of the quiet whispers in the halls of power in DC as a justification for the surveillance systems being enabled. You ask if there is an arms race. No, there are many arms races going on right now. Just like nuclear, if its possible they will consider building it, potential side effects be damned, as long as we have some force multiplier the "enemy" doesn't.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity" or by a desire to "benefit humanity." But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn't give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up. 88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human racesmost of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use. 89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself. 90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity. 91. Also, science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83). 92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.

stiiv 4y ago

> The goal of the research was to determine if the mutations in the Omicron spike protein were responsible for this variant’s increased ability to evade the immunity to SARS-2 that humans have built up, and whether the changes led to Omicron’s lower rate of severity.

shadowgovt 4y ago

Yes, but it's not hidden. On the one side of it: humanity, and our ability to explore, comprehend, and modify the reality around us. On the other side of it: naturally-evolved viruses. They have a couple billion years' practice overriding biological countermeasures and massive territory advantage. If we do nothing, odds are they will eventually mutate into something that drops us dead in our tracks or wrecks us slowly, as they have before (smallpox, 1918 flu, HIV). And in our modern, deeply-interconnected world, geographic defenses and population isolation no longer protect us as they did our ancestors. The main tools we have to avoid this are our ability to explore, comprehend, and modify. The capacity to change something and observe how the change affects it is something the viruses cannot do, and arguably our best chance of "outsmarting" them so that when they naturally mutate into a dangerous form, we already have the tools in place to mitigate or disassemble the danger.

throwaway4aday 4y ago
Exactly how does modifying the virus help create prevention measures or treatments for it? Please provide real world examples.

photochemsyn 4y ago

The most banal reason is that groups of researchers generally coordinate to set up little bureaucratic power centers within the national research agencies to ensure themselves a steady stream of grants; this in turn allows them to get tenure at their universities (under 'publish or perish' which more practically means 'get your grant renewed or perish' and grant renewal relies on (1) a steady stream of publications and (2) ensuring the federal agency keeps earmarking funds for your area of research). This is all perhaps well and good if you're fighting for funds for studying, say, childhood leukemia, but in this case it's been a major disaster and has almost certainly played a central role in this recent global pandemic. Oops.

hotpotamus 4y ago

Some people get a kick out of 3D printing guns in their garage. Why not apply that to other weapons?

AzzieElbab 4y ago
No one is 3d printing ballistic nuclear weapons. Scale matter?
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  If you use weapons-grade plutonium as the feed stock for your 3D printer, you won't live long enough for the scale issues to stop you.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Unlike those who print guns, I don't think virologists are motivated by spite for politicians.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I don't see any reason there would be correlation in those qualities. But it's more that I think that advances in technology will eventually democratize biological weapons in ways that 3d printing have democratized the production of small arms.
- muaytimbo 4y ago
  Virologists at academic centers like BU are beholden to their paymasters. Grant-writing and groveling day in and day out. I'm not sure what feelings develop in that endless loop of futility.

arminiusreturns 4y ago

Yes, there is an arms race, an all-arms race of which bio is only a part. I reccomend the following two books, The Sheild of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, and The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade. The revolution in technology has shifted the global array of national security threat models away from just the nation-state. The low barrier to entry to tech like the latest in bio or cyber research means now a single actor with no grouo or state affiliations is now capable of producing some destructive event on a national or even global scale. On the backend, this is one of the quiet whispers in the halls of power in DC as a justification for the surveillance systems being enabled. You ask if there is an arms race. No, there are many arms races going on right now. Just like nuclear, if its possible they will consider building it, potential side effects be damned, as long as we have some force multiplier the "enemy" doesn't.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

87. Science and technology provide the most important examples of surrogate activities. Some scientists claim that they are motivated by "curiosity" or by a desire to "benefit humanity." But it is easy to see that neither of these can be the principal motive of most scientists. As for "curiosity," that notion is simply absurd. Most scientists work on highly specialized problems that are not the object of any normal curiosity. For example, is an astronomer, a mathematician or an entomologist curious about the properties of isopropyltrimethylmethane? Of course not. Only a chemist is curious about such a thing, and he is curious about it only because chemistry is his surrogate activity. Is the chemist curious about the appropriate classification of a new species of beetle? No. That question is of interest only to the entomologist, and he is interested in it only because entomology is his surrogate activity. If the chemist and the entomologist had to exert themselves seriously to obtain the physical necessities, and if that effort exercised their abilities in an interesting way but in some nonscientific pursuit, then they wouldn't give a damn about isopropyltrimethylmethane or the classification of beetles. Suppose that lack of funds for postgraduate education had led the chemist to become an insurance broker instead of a chemist. In that case he would have been very interested in insurance matters but would have cared nothing about isopropyltrimethylmethane. In any case it is not normal to put into the satisfaction of mere curiosity the amount of time and effort that scientists put into their work. The "curiosity" explanation for the scientists' motive just doesn't stand up. 88. The "benefit of humanity" explanation doesn't work any better. Some scientific work has no conceivable relation to the welfare of the human racesmost of archaeology or comparative linguistics for example. Some other areas of science present obviously dangerous possibilities. Yet scientists in these areas are just as enthusiastic about their work as those who develop vaccines or study air pollution. Consider the case of Dr. Edward Teller, who had an obvious emotional involvement in promoting nuclear power plants. Did this involvement stem from a desire to benefit humanity? If so, then why didn't Dr. Teller get emotional about other "humanitarian" causes? If he was such a humanitarian then why did he help to develop the H-bomb? As with many other scientific achievements, it is very much open to question whether nuclear power plants actually do benefit humanity. Does the cheap electricity outweigh the accumulating waste and the risk of accidents? Dr. Teller saw only one side of the question. Clearly his emotional involvement with nuclear power arose not from a desire to "benefit humanity" but from a personal fulfillment he got from his work and from seeing it put to practical use. 89. The same is true of scientists generally. With possible rare exceptions, their motive is neither curiosity nor a desire to benefit humanity but the need to go through the power process: to have a goal (a scientific problem to solve), to make an effort (research) and to attain the goal (solution of the problem.) Science is a surrogate activity because scientists work mainly for the fulfillment they get out of the work itself. 90. Of course, it's not that simple. Other motives do play a role for many scientists. Money and status for example. Some scientists may be persons of the type who have an insatiable drive for status (see paragraph 79) and this may provide much of the motivation for their work. No doubt the majority of scientists, like the majority of the general population, are more or less susceptible to advertising and marketing techniques and need money to satisfy their craving for goods and services. Thus science is not a PURE surrogate activity. But it is in large part a surrogate activity. 91. Also, science and technology constitute a power mass movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement (see paragraph 83). 92. Thus science marches on blindly, without regard to the real welfare of the human race or to any other standard, obedient only to the psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials and corporation executives who provide the funds for research.