4 ms·

Yes, but how has the millions we have spent on collecting and modifying wild coronaviruses helped us with this pandemic. Despite over 100 years of technological

Yes, but how has the millions we have spent on collecting and modifying wild coronaviruses helped us with this pandemic. Despite over 100 years of technological advancements and the virus is still impossible to stop! So why do we want to risk creating new viruses when the decades of research has proven to be such a colossal failure?

shadowgovt 4y ago
> impossible to stop I don't think one stops a pandemic; IIUC, one gets out in front of it with vaccination. Which we did, thanks to previous mRNA research conducted on other viruses. GOF research is one of the few ways we're aware of to get out in front of vaccinating viruses that don't yet exist but are probable to exist. This argument treads suspiciously close to "Sometimes people use fire to burn a house down, so why do we allow cooking? People should only be allowed to use naturally-occurring fires and not create new ones."
- baja_blast 4y ago
  And what is the probability that out of the thousands of viruses we identify the exact one that mutates in the exact manner as researches induce in the lab? The possible mutations a virus could take are astronomical, and conditions in a lab using humanized mice models are not something that would ever happen in the wild. Efforts are better spent on surveillance not prediction! https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05373-w/d41586-018-05373-w.pdf https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018...
  - jpeloquin 4y ago
    Your article actually argues in favor of the type of research BU was doing because it's being done post-outbreak: "Once an emerging outbreak virus has been identified, it needs to be analysed quickly to establish what type it is; which molecular mechanisms (such as receptor type) enable it to jump between individuals; how it spreads through human populations; and how it affects those infected In other words, at least four kinds of analysis are needed: genomic, virological, epidemiological and clinical.". BU's work is in the genomic and virological categories and addresses the kind of questions the article wants addressed as part of a surveillance strategy. The article strongly opposes making predictions of whether a pathogen will be pandemic because predictions are a rigged game. There are enough factors that you are very unlikely to be correct, and even then a true positive combined with successful mitigations erodes public trust because "the severity of the virus had been overblown". Geologists avoid making predictions of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes for similar reasons. It is not directly opposed to study of pre-pandemic animal pathogens: "Surveys of animals will undoubtedly result in the discovery of many thousands of new viruses. These data will benefit studies of diversity and evolution, and could tell us whether and why some pathogens might jump species boundaries more frequently than others." This makes sense, because study of pre-pandemic pathogens is needed to set a foundation such that the post-outbreak analysis the article wants us to focus on can be completed in a reasonable time frame. The article is arguing for rapid response and against predictions. It's not opposed to basic research of pathogens, and actually supports this specific type of research.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  mRNA research was mainly developed to fight cancers, not viruses. To the extent that it was already being researched to stop viruses, it was being tested on existing viruses, not GOF-modified ones.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> impossible to stop I don't think one stops a pandemic; IIUC, one gets out in front of it with vaccination. Which we did, thanks to previous mRNA research conducted on other viruses. GOF research is one of the few ways we're aware of to get out in front of vaccinating viruses that don't yet exist but are probable to exist. This argument treads suspiciously close to "Sometimes people use fire to burn a house down, so why do we allow cooking? People should only be allowed to use naturally-occurring fires and not create new ones."

baja_blast 4y ago
And what is the probability that out of the thousands of viruses we identify the exact one that mutates in the exact manner as researches induce in the lab? The possible mutations a virus could take are astronomical, and conditions in a lab using humanized mice models are not something that would ever happen in the wild. Efforts are better spent on surveillance not prediction! https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05373-w/d41586-018-05373-w.pdf https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018...
- jpeloquin 4y ago
  Your article actually argues in favor of the type of research BU was doing because it's being done post-outbreak: "Once an emerging outbreak virus has been identified, it needs to be analysed quickly to establish what type it is; which molecular mechanisms (such as receptor type) enable it to jump between individuals; how it spreads through human populations; and how it affects those infected In other words, at least four kinds of analysis are needed: genomic, virological, epidemiological and clinical.". BU's work is in the genomic and virological categories and addresses the kind of questions the article wants addressed as part of a surveillance strategy. The article strongly opposes making predictions of whether a pathogen will be pandemic because predictions are a rigged game. There are enough factors that you are very unlikely to be correct, and even then a true positive combined with successful mitigations erodes public trust because "the severity of the virus had been overblown". Geologists avoid making predictions of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes for similar reasons. It is not directly opposed to study of pre-pandemic animal pathogens: "Surveys of animals will undoubtedly result in the discovery of many thousands of new viruses. These data will benefit studies of diversity and evolution, and could tell us whether and why some pathogens might jump species boundaries more frequently than others." This makes sense, because study of pre-pandemic pathogens is needed to set a foundation such that the post-outbreak analysis the article wants us to focus on can be completed in a reasonable time frame. The article is arguing for rapid response and against predictions. It's not opposed to basic research of pathogens, and actually supports this specific type of research.
tsimionescu 4y ago
mRNA research was mainly developed to fight cancers, not viruses. To the extent that it was already being researched to stop viruses, it was being tested on existing viruses, not GOF-modified ones.