3 ms·

And how did our decades of Coronavirus research help us prevent/fight this last pandemic? Given the fact it was already known at the time that the spike protein

And how did our decades of Coronavirus research help us prevent/fight this last pandemic? Given the fact it was already known at the time that the spike protein on SARS2 was what researchers have been using to attach to wild viruses so infect humanized mice/cell cultures via the ACE2 receptor we should have already known that Airborne H2H transmission was possible!

shadowgovt 4y ago
> And how did our decades of Coronavirus research help us prevent/fight this last pandemic? IIUC, the vaccine was synthesized in record time, was it not?
- baja_blast 4y ago
  the MRNA vaccine had nothing to do with the research involving modifying wild coronaviruses. The technology was originally built independently and for different reasons, but there was a MERS vaccine they developed and modified for SARS2, but again that was for an existing known virus. The type of research Ecohealth conducted contributed absolutely nothing to the development of the vaccine. In fact Ecohealth didn't even share their research of any data with anyone since the pandemic began. So the value of the risky research is dubious.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
We've had very little GoF research, in large part because it's controversial. There have been several outright bans, and the issue is so emotional that many scientists probably avoid it just because the costs are high. I am not necessarily in favor of GoF research, but I recognize a broken argument when I see one. In the face of a clear policy preference to dissuade GoF work, the question "why didn't [the very limited GoF work that we allowed to take place] produce huge numbers of beneficial results" isn't really an interesting question about the usefulness of the research, since it might just as easily reflect a (known) pre-existing policy bias. We're in a rapidly-developing new era and have just seen clear evidence of how devastating a pandemic can be. The question we should be asking is whether we're using every tool at our disposal to defend ourselves from the next one, and that requires some careful and dispassionate weighing of risks/rewards. The arguments I see don't meet that standard at all.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> And how did our decades of Coronavirus research help us prevent/fight this last pandemic? IIUC, the vaccine was synthesized in record time, was it not?

baja_blast 4y ago
the MRNA vaccine had nothing to do with the research involving modifying wild coronaviruses. The technology was originally built independently and for different reasons, but there was a MERS vaccine they developed and modified for SARS2, but again that was for an existing known virus. The type of research Ecohealth conducted contributed absolutely nothing to the development of the vaccine. In fact Ecohealth didn't even share their research of any data with anyone since the pandemic began. So the value of the risky research is dubious.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

We've had very little GoF research, in large part because it's controversial. There have been several outright bans, and the issue is so emotional that many scientists probably avoid it just because the costs are high. I am not necessarily in favor of GoF research, but I recognize a broken argument when I see one. In the face of a clear policy preference to dissuade GoF work, the question "why didn't [the very limited GoF work that we allowed to take place] produce huge numbers of beneficial results" isn't really an interesting question about the usefulness of the research, since it might just as easily reflect a (known) pre-existing policy bias. We're in a rapidly-developing new era and have just seen clear evidence of how devastating a pandemic can be. The question we should be asking is whether we're using every tool at our disposal to defend ourselves from the next one, and that requires some careful and dispassionate weighing of risks/rewards. The arguments I see don't meet that standard at all.