10 ms·

Gain of Function? Not So Fast

73 points by _Microft 4y ago

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
So, wait. It's not gain-of-function research unless they successfully make a more dangerous virus? These "scientists" are getting so much better at politics. Playing with the definitions of words is a class political tactic! I'm going to quote one of the scientists the article actually quoted themselves: "Now, the outcome of the experiment was not clear. You could have assumed that the virus, compared to the ancestral virus is less pathogenic (which was the case). But it could also have been more pathogenic. Therefore, these experiments need to be done in appropriate biosafety laboratories. And, if the virus can become more pathogenic and falls into certain categories, you also need permission from the US government to perform the experiment - especially if they fund your research. And that is what was not done here." Later on, on the same subject, he literally says: "Having said all that, I absolutely think GOF research should be tightly regulated and controlled." Our scientific institutions surely have become wholly corrupted by politics. This is gain-of-function research. Whether you think that type of research should be conducted or not is moot. The scientist quoted said he thinks this was not dangerous GOF research, but still needed to be tightly regulated.
- tptacek 4y ago
  It reads as if you just scare-quoted "scientist" in referring to Derek Lowe. Was that your intention?
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    I'm a former PhD scientist who has done (non-pathogenic) GOF research -- we were trying to make energy production more efficient -- and I support the comment of GP.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      First, I'm genuinely just asking if I understand the comment well enough. Did you read it the same way I did? Second, would you classify Derek Lowe as a scientist, or a "scientist"? (If you think there's no difference, then you're reading the parent comment differently from me, which is useful information.)
      - aliqot 4y ago
        What is a scientist in your context? I see the definition according to Webster's, does yours differ from that?
      - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
        if the scare-quotes bother you, ignore them, since they weren't the main point of the comment, but the quotes were meant to convey that many scientists today often don't behave scientifically, but instead behave like politicians, activists, or moralizers, even if they have the credentials of a scientist and do scientific things for a living. There are so many things said by scientists and scientific authorities today that are at best purely the opinion of the person speaking, or have very weak observational evidence supporting them, but these things are often given the veneer of science anyways.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        tptacek 4y ago
        You wrote it, so I'm not ignoring it; I'm taking what you said seriously. Can you articulate the way in which Derek Lowe is "not behaving scientifically"?
        PathOfEclipse 4y ago
        If you're going to take what I say seriously, then I think you should focus first on the main point of the comment, and not a minor detail, but whatever. I can play ball. Assuming Derek Lowe the author of the article, I feel like my first comment covered your question He's playing with the definition of a politically-charged word, claiming that a GOF experiment isn't so unless it successfully creates a more virulent virus. I get that the definition of words isn't set in stone and there can be ambiguity involved, but this seems like a very dishonest take on what GOF research actually is. He even quoted a scientist whose conclusion is the exact opposite of his, that this is in fact GOF research, and failed to mention the fact! To add to my original comment, he used the phrase "real virologist" at least three times. This is charged language that implies a lot of people in these conversations don't know what they are talking about. This is not the behavior I expect out of scientists. Well, that's not true anymore. Nowadays, this is unfortunately the kind of behavior I do expect out of scientists that write articles for sites like science.org.
- defen 4y ago
  I don't even see how this experiment could have possibly demonstrated a "gain" of function (in terms of danger) - the original Wuhan coronavirus had a 100% fatality rate in these mice models. So if they had done this experiment and gotten a 100% fatality rate again...what's the conclusion?
  - bgentry 4y ago
    Making a 100% deadly virus more contagious, or from the other perspective, making an extremely contagious virus more deadly, certainly sounds like “gain of function” to me. In either case the virus under study has been made more dangerous / improved on its prior “function”, which was a likely outcome of the experiment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- chomp 4y ago
  > It's not gain-of-function research unless they successfully make a more dangerous virus? Yes, that's more or less the definition of the term. > Playing with the definitions of words is a class political tactic! I definitely get the feeling that there are people that like to twist words to suit their goals. > This is gain-of-function research. From where are you sourcing your definition of the term? This doesn't appear to be gain of function research (from the strict definition of the term) but in this day and age when the virus is ground-zero for politics, it's probably not politically wise to do research on it along these lines. To this end, where what's politically favorable influences the science we do, I do agree that politics is inevitably corrupting good research.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    > Gain-of-function research is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products. It is not constrained to virulence.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > Yes, that's more or less the definition of the term. You can't characterize a type of research by its results for purposes of evaluating its methods. If we want to say "GOF research should only be carried out in a lab that meets such and such criteria", or "we shouldn't fund GOF research at all", then the definition must be related to what the research may do, since we need to evaluate it before we know it's result.
- radus 4y ago
  The research described in the pre-print aimed to understand the mechanism of action behind the decrease in pathogenicity observed with Omicron strains, and specifically, whether mutations in the Omicron spike protein can account for that decrease. The experiment they carried out is about the most straightforward one you could draw up to begin to answer that question, and I would never even think to characterize it as a "gain of function" experiment. If you want to classify this study as GOF then you might as well do the same with any study of a virus where even a point mutation is made - good luck doing any virology under those conditions.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Changing genome is literally changing source code. You just copied a new function moreEffectiveImmuneDodge() into a viral substrate that was previously lessEffectiveImmuneDodge() This act of composition apparently created willStillTryToKillYou().withAMoreEffectiveImmuneDodge() Look, I get it, you've gotta run a trial. Do it in BSL4. Not BSL3. You are mixing snippets from two known, highly transmissable, highly pathogenic set of substrates. You should not be going into utilizing either of these ingredients as a chimera under the misguidedly optimistic thought you won't make something worse. The least you could do is demonstrate an elevated level of caution of your treatment of it until your experimental results prove the end result isn't as bad or worse than the originals. How is that so hard an assumption to work under? If we're locking GoF behind "I succesfully created a more dangerous pathogen" rather than "I'm adding a feature to a virus that wasn't there", then GoF is a useless term.
    - cykros 4y ago
      They would have loved to, but BU's proposed BSL4 lab got blocked back in the early 2000's because, well, they wanted to put it in the heart of Roxbury. And considering that they've had at least one or two leaks from their existing BSL3 facilities in Boston, that struck folks nearby as...well, not the best place to put a BSL4 (especially a handful of years after the Anthrax releases traced as originating from Ft. Dietrich in the wake of 9/11). There are things that you COULD do with scientific procedure that would absolutely have some beneficial results where the potential human cost is simply too high to ethically justify (for example, see: a ton of science performed under the Third Reich). Perhaps some day we can do some of this work in a safe manner off-planet (ideally, without even needing humans on board the platforms where the virii are being manipulated). We're not there yet, and ethicists need to be willing to step in to keep things in check.
- dstein5 4y ago
  Science reporting has been dead for decades, these rags are glorified blogs that race bait and endorse politicians.
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    Derek Lowe blog post are very good. I have an specialization in Chemistry in my secondary school. (It's somewhat equivalente to two year of a major of 5 years in Chemistry in the university.) I can understand most of what he writes and it checks out, but sometimes it get's too technical for me. They are very fun if you like Chemistry.
- jpeloquin 4y ago
  Getting everyone to agree what "gain of function" means is a lost cause. "The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term … From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x The actual regulations sensibly avoid the term, targeting "enhanced potentially pandemic pathogens". https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential...
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Following your link Sars-cov-2 falls under that categorization. > Examples of pathogens that have the potential to cause human pandemics, or have caused a human pandemic, include the H5N1 or H7N9 influenza viruses(link is external), also referred to as bird or avian influenzas, SARS-CoV(link is external), which caused an epidemic in several countries in 2003, and SARS-CoV-2(link is external), also known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, which causes COVID-19 disease.
- kodah 4y ago
  Not a biologist or virologist. Would it be better to zoom out and just tightly regulate anything that studies a virus using a chimera?
- beebmam 4y ago
  Are you opposed to any kind of inducing of mutations in viruses in vitro? What specifically are you opposed to?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wrycoder 4y ago
  It is regulated and controlled[0]. But, does anyone pay attention? [0] https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statem...
  - crashingintoyou 4y ago
    The quality of regulation seems extremely negligent - e.g. https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-ecohealth-nih-emails/ https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-eco...
causi 4y ago
So this was not a gain-of-function experiment So what's the definition of gain of function? Does it have to add a function that isn't found in the wild? I'm struggling to come up with a definition that excludes this experiment but includes everything that is considered gain of function.
- Vecr 4y ago
  It's gain of function if the virus gains any sort of function. Splicing two viruses that have different properties into one that shares at least some the properties from both, even if both of the original viruses are natural, is gain of function.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    That's not what what virologists mean when they say "gain of function." By that definition, almost all lab virology would be considered "gain-of-function." If you strictly regulated that, virtually all virology research would grind to a halt. The gain-of-function debate began in the 2010s over a specific set of experiments that were done on influenza. The term is used to describe changes that render a virus that has the potential to become a pandemic more virulent or more transmissive.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      Sars-cov-2 is already a pandemic causing agent.
    - COGlory 4y ago
      This is the correct answer. GoF has, and has had for years, a very narrow and specific meaning when applied to virology. This is not some arbitrary meaning, but rather is used by funding and regulatory agencies to evaluate risk. Gain of function as described, has to increase the virulence of a potential human pandemic-causing pathogen. To those who might counter that this definition needs to be changed: I don't disagree, but until it is, scientists are going to grade themselves on the scales they are given by the funding and regulatory agencies.
thatguy0900 4y ago
Gain of function research on dangerous viruses is one of those things that seems like such a obviously and totally awful idea that I have to assume I'm missing something. Is the whole thing just a bio weapons program with a sheen of paint and the occasional lab escape is a cost of doing business? Like this is stuff that will, eventually, always have an accident, no? Especially when it's financed to happen in countries with less than stellar working conditions. I can't imagine that everyone involved is so deluded as to think they can repeatedly make super viruses with no consequences, right? What am I missing?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  I believe the idea is that it helps researchers understand how better to mitigate negative effects caused by a given virus. It's commonly seen (among virologists) as having at least some merit.
  - slt2021 4y ago
    yet these lab rats have never created a single vaccine. All vaccines are created by a totally different people, who have nothing to do with these deadly chimera virus experiments
    - XorNot 4y ago
      Why do you think scientific research is published?
      - yucky 4y ago
        To keep that sweet sweet grant money coming? Well that's not the only reason, but it's probably the biggest if we're being honest.
      - slt2021 4y ago
        mRNA vaccine technology is completely different from the technology they use to create chimera viruses
webdoodle 4y ago
Its bioweapons testing, and it is a crime against humanity.
possiblydrunk 4y ago
Derek Lowe expresses a narrow definition of GOF to make his point and defend the research. Interestingly, using his definition, no proposed experiment could be classified as GOF because his definition depends on a successful outcome where a more pathogenic virus is produced which can only be determined after the fact. He misses the point that there are various definitions of GOF, and more importantly, that the people concerned about the experiments aren't concerned about the precise definition of GOF -- they are concerned with experiments that might reasonably generate successful GOF mutations. "In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work." [0] "...experiments that encompass all influenza viruses, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV that can be reasonably anticipated to increase pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammalian species" [1] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_28 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_28 [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_30 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_30
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- autokad 4y ago
  - VectorLock 4y ago
    They will then vehemently defend how important it was for them to make airborne hyper-HIV because it will then help us understand how to protect us from airborne hyper-HIV.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Does your definition include attenuated virus like the used in the oral polio vaccine?
  - possiblydrunk 4y ago
epivosism 4y ago
Author has a reasonably open mind on virus origins, article from may 2021 https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/coronavirus-origins https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/coronavirus-origin... He's not circling the wagons defending natural origins in the above.
- chubs 4y ago
  If there's anything I've learned growing up in various churches... the people who aren't open-minded, aren't worth listening to. Thanks for highlighting that this author seems be worth listening to.
  - splistud 4y ago
slt2021 4y ago
if one of these chimera viruses leaks - you can easily sell vaccine for $1000 per shot. Easy money printing machine: keep making new viruses, keep making new vaccines, make $$$
gweinberg 4y ago
Similarly, it wasn't Russian Roulette because the chamber the hammer fell on wasn't even loaded!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
xupybd 4y ago
>But before jumping out of your chair, consider that when these mice were exposed to the original Wuhan coronavirus that 100% of them died. Well that is very different to the first news I saw about this. Tim Pool reported that in the first test no mice died. I guess I have to be more careful about what I listen to.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
chatterhead 4y ago
Here is the musical version of this author's argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
It's very easy to get frightened about virological research if one doesn't know much about virology. Viruses are scary. Scientists altering viruses in the lab conjures up scenes from horror flicks. Then you read a bit about virology, and you realize that most virological research involves altering viruses, and that these sorts of experiments are orders of magnitude less likely to lead to a super strain outbreak than the millions of people around the world who right now have SARS-CoV-2 replicating in their throats, and who are walking around maskless, breathing at other people. If you want to gain a bit of familiarity with virology in your free time or during your commute, I recommend listening to This Week in Virology: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- teh_klev 4y ago
  > I recommend listening to This Week in Virology: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ I agree, Vincent and his regulars are fantastic science communicators. I started listening to TWiV just before the Coronavirus kicked off when there were early reports of something going on in Wuhan. I also liked that he published his virology lectures with updates each year on YouTube. The Q&A livestream[0] is also quite entertaining, Amy Rosenfeld is quite a character (it sadly doesn't get published as a podcast). [0]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGhmZX2NKiNmAaXoQ4kCU3ddmbpdq_CLX https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGhmZX2NKiNmAaXoQ4kCU...
AzzieElbab 4y ago
- marshray 4y ago
  No.
  - AzzieElbab 4y ago
    How about only those making existing viruses more contagious and deadly?
    - mise_en_place 4y ago
      The proverbial genie is out of the bottle I think. Anyone with a high school chemistry set can engage in these same types of experiments. There are even tutorials for biohacking w/ CRISPR on YouTube.
rolph 4y ago
this is recombination, portions of virus are swapped around, in this case an omicron spike, with wuhan backbone. this sort of manipulation can produce gain of function when there is interplay between the recombined elements, most often it is simply a recombination of functions. to split hairs, the wuhan "backbone" [not spike] gained function of omicron spike, but lost function of wuhan spike. gain of function doesnt have to be so dramatic. there is a non spike region, of coronavirus that modulates virus/interferon signaling dynamics, modification of a small number of, [as in 2-3] codons will produce lethality that itself is not gain of function it is potentiation. a clear cut case of gain of function would be a recombination of wuhan backbone with chimeric SARS-MERS spike that retains both target specificities [ACE2-DPP4]
tinus_hn 4y ago
In other news, science can’t be expected to know how one can be protected from the coronavirus, because it’s new and nothing is known. However, humans manipulating the virus in a lab is perfectly safe and fine and responsible and can in no way lead or have lead to the virus escaping that lab. I’m not quite convinced.
basicplus2 4y ago
Main argument is it is less dangerous.. discovered AFTER creating it.
pcdoodle 4y ago
What a cringe thing to work on with your life.
autokad 4y ago
I said this that got flagged: > That's how they do, they play games with words. I can imagine them making an airborne version of HIV that only kills 80% of infected "well its not gain of function because it kills less than the original strain" stay classy with your censorship. edit: and apparently someone has a script that auto downvotes. doubt anyone read this days old comment section within seconds of my post.

73 points by _Microft 4y ago

So, wait. It's not gain-of-function research unless they successfully make a more dangerous virus? These "scientists" are getting so much better at politics. Playing with the definitions of words is a class political tactic! I'm going to quote one of the scientists the article actually quoted themselves: "Now, the outcome of the experiment was not clear. You could have assumed that the virus, compared to the ancestral virus is less pathogenic (which was the case). But it could also have been more pathogenic. Therefore, these experiments need to be done in appropriate biosafety laboratories. And, if the virus can become more pathogenic and falls into certain categories, you also need permission from the US government to perform the experiment - especially if they fund your research. And that is what was not done here." Later on, on the same subject, he literally says: "Having said all that, I absolutely think GOF research should be tightly regulated and controlled." Our scientific institutions surely have become wholly corrupted by politics. This is gain-of-function research. Whether you think that type of research should be conducted or not is moot. The scientist quoted said he thinks this was not dangerous GOF research, but still needed to be tightly regulated.

tptacek 4y ago
It reads as if you just scare-quoted "scientist" in referring to Derek Lowe. Was that your intention?
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  I'm a former PhD scientist who has done (non-pathogenic) GOF research -- we were trying to make energy production more efficient -- and I support the comment of GP.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    First, I'm genuinely just asking if I understand the comment well enough. Did you read it the same way I did? Second, would you classify Derek Lowe as a scientist, or a "scientist"? (If you think there's no difference, then you're reading the parent comment differently from me, which is useful information.)
    - aliqot 4y ago
      What is a scientist in your context? I see the definition according to Webster's, does yours differ from that?
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      if the scare-quotes bother you, ignore them, since they weren't the main point of the comment, but the quotes were meant to convey that many scientists today often don't behave scientifically, but instead behave like politicians, activists, or moralizers, even if they have the credentials of a scientist and do scientific things for a living. There are so many things said by scientists and scientific authorities today that are at best purely the opinion of the person speaking, or have very weak observational evidence supporting them, but these things are often given the veneer of science anyways.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - tptacek 4y ago
        You wrote it, so I'm not ignoring it; I'm taking what you said seriously. Can you articulate the way in which Derek Lowe is "not behaving scientifically"?
        PathOfEclipse 4y ago
        If you're going to take what I say seriously, then I think you should focus first on the main point of the comment, and not a minor detail, but whatever. I can play ball. Assuming Derek Lowe the author of the article, I feel like my first comment covered your question He's playing with the definition of a politically-charged word, claiming that a GOF experiment isn't so unless it successfully creates a more virulent virus. I get that the definition of words isn't set in stone and there can be ambiguity involved, but this seems like a very dishonest take on what GOF research actually is. He even quoted a scientist whose conclusion is the exact opposite of his, that this is in fact GOF research, and failed to mention the fact! To add to my original comment, he used the phrase "real virologist" at least three times. This is charged language that implies a lot of people in these conversations don't know what they are talking about. This is not the behavior I expect out of scientists. Well, that's not true anymore. Nowadays, this is unfortunately the kind of behavior I do expect out of scientists that write articles for sites like science.org.
defen 4y ago
I don't even see how this experiment could have possibly demonstrated a "gain" of function (in terms of danger) - the original Wuhan coronavirus had a 100% fatality rate in these mice models. So if they had done this experiment and gotten a 100% fatality rate again...what's the conclusion?
- bgentry 4y ago
  Making a 100% deadly virus more contagious, or from the other perspective, making an extremely contagious virus more deadly, certainly sounds like “gain of function” to me. In either case the virus under study has been made more dangerous / improved on its prior “function”, which was a likely outcome of the experiment. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
chomp 4y ago
> It's not gain-of-function research unless they successfully make a more dangerous virus? Yes, that's more or less the definition of the term. > Playing with the definitions of words is a class political tactic! I definitely get the feeling that there are people that like to twist words to suit their goals. > This is gain-of-function research. From where are you sourcing your definition of the term? This doesn't appear to be gain of function research (from the strict definition of the term) but in this day and age when the virus is ground-zero for politics, it's probably not politically wise to do research on it along these lines. To this end, where what's politically favorable influences the science we do, I do agree that politics is inevitably corrupting good research.
- peteradio 4y ago
  > Gain-of-function research is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products. It is not constrained to virulence.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > Yes, that's more or less the definition of the term. You can't characterize a type of research by its results for purposes of evaluating its methods. If we want to say "GOF research should only be carried out in a lab that meets such and such criteria", or "we shouldn't fund GOF research at all", then the definition must be related to what the research may do, since we need to evaluate it before we know it's result.
radus 4y ago
The research described in the pre-print aimed to understand the mechanism of action behind the decrease in pathogenicity observed with Omicron strains, and specifically, whether mutations in the Omicron spike protein can account for that decrease. The experiment they carried out is about the most straightforward one you could draw up to begin to answer that question, and I would never even think to characterize it as a "gain of function" experiment. If you want to classify this study as GOF then you might as well do the same with any study of a virus where even a point mutation is made - good luck doing any virology under those conditions.
- salawat 4y ago
  Changing genome is literally changing source code. You just copied a new function moreEffectiveImmuneDodge() into a viral substrate that was previously lessEffectiveImmuneDodge() This act of composition apparently created willStillTryToKillYou().withAMoreEffectiveImmuneDodge() Look, I get it, you've gotta run a trial. Do it in BSL4. Not BSL3. You are mixing snippets from two known, highly transmissable, highly pathogenic set of substrates. You should not be going into utilizing either of these ingredients as a chimera under the misguidedly optimistic thought you won't make something worse. The least you could do is demonstrate an elevated level of caution of your treatment of it until your experimental results prove the end result isn't as bad or worse than the originals. How is that so hard an assumption to work under? If we're locking GoF behind "I succesfully created a more dangerous pathogen" rather than "I'm adding a feature to a virus that wasn't there", then GoF is a useless term.
  - cykros 4y ago
    They would have loved to, but BU's proposed BSL4 lab got blocked back in the early 2000's because, well, they wanted to put it in the heart of Roxbury. And considering that they've had at least one or two leaks from their existing BSL3 facilities in Boston, that struck folks nearby as...well, not the best place to put a BSL4 (especially a handful of years after the Anthrax releases traced as originating from Ft. Dietrich in the wake of 9/11). There are things that you COULD do with scientific procedure that would absolutely have some beneficial results where the potential human cost is simply too high to ethically justify (for example, see: a ton of science performed under the Third Reich). Perhaps some day we can do some of this work in a safe manner off-planet (ideally, without even needing humans on board the platforms where the virii are being manipulated). We're not there yet, and ethicists need to be willing to step in to keep things in check.
dstein5 4y ago
Science reporting has been dead for decades, these rags are glorified blogs that race bait and endorse politicians.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Derek Lowe blog post are very good. I have an specialization in Chemistry in my secondary school. (It's somewhat equivalente to two year of a major of 5 years in Chemistry in the university.) I can understand most of what he writes and it checks out, but sometimes it get's too technical for me. They are very fun if you like Chemistry.
jpeloquin 4y ago
Getting everyone to agree what "gain of function" means is a lost cause. "The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term … From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x The actual regulations sensibly avoid the term, targeting "enhanced potentially pandemic pathogens". https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential...
- peteradio 4y ago
  Following your link Sars-cov-2 falls under that categorization. > Examples of pathogens that have the potential to cause human pandemics, or have caused a human pandemic, include the H5N1 or H7N9 influenza viruses(link is external), also referred to as bird or avian influenzas, SARS-CoV(link is external), which caused an epidemic in several countries in 2003, and SARS-CoV-2(link is external), also known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, which causes COVID-19 disease.
kodah 4y ago
Not a biologist or virologist. Would it be better to zoom out and just tightly regulate anything that studies a virus using a chimera?
beebmam 4y ago
Are you opposed to any kind of inducing of mutations in viruses in vitro? What specifically are you opposed to?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wrycoder 4y ago
It is regulated and controlled[0]. But, does anyone pay attention? [0] https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statem...
- crashingintoyou 4y ago
  The quality of regulation seems extremely negligent - e.g. https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-ecohealth-nih-emails/ https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-eco...

causi 4y ago

So this was not a gain-of-function experiment So what's the definition of gain of function? Does it have to add a function that isn't found in the wild? I'm struggling to come up with a definition that excludes this experiment but includes everything that is considered gain of function.

Vecr 4y ago
It's gain of function if the virus gains any sort of function. Splicing two viruses that have different properties into one that shares at least some the properties from both, even if both of the original viruses are natural, is gain of function.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  That's not what what virologists mean when they say "gain of function." By that definition, almost all lab virology would be considered "gain-of-function." If you strictly regulated that, virtually all virology research would grind to a halt. The gain-of-function debate began in the 2010s over a specific set of experiments that were done on influenza. The term is used to describe changes that render a virus that has the potential to become a pandemic more virulent or more transmissive.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Sars-cov-2 is already a pandemic causing agent.
  - COGlory 4y ago
    This is the correct answer. GoF has, and has had for years, a very narrow and specific meaning when applied to virology. This is not some arbitrary meaning, but rather is used by funding and regulatory agencies to evaluate risk. Gain of function as described, has to increase the virulence of a potential human pandemic-causing pathogen. To those who might counter that this definition needs to be changed: I don't disagree, but until it is, scientists are going to grade themselves on the scales they are given by the funding and regulatory agencies.

thatguy0900 4y ago

Gain of function research on dangerous viruses is one of those things that seems like such a obviously and totally awful idea that I have to assume I'm missing something. Is the whole thing just a bio weapons program with a sheen of paint and the occasional lab escape is a cost of doing business? Like this is stuff that will, eventually, always have an accident, no? Especially when it's financed to happen in countries with less than stellar working conditions. I can't imagine that everyone involved is so deluded as to think they can repeatedly make super viruses with no consequences, right? What am I missing?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I believe the idea is that it helps researchers understand how better to mitigate negative effects caused by a given virus. It's commonly seen (among virologists) as having at least some merit.
- slt2021 4y ago
  yet these lab rats have never created a single vaccine. All vaccines are created by a totally different people, who have nothing to do with these deadly chimera virus experiments
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Why do you think scientific research is published?
    - yucky 4y ago
      To keep that sweet sweet grant money coming? Well that's not the only reason, but it's probably the biggest if we're being honest.
    - slt2021 4y ago
      mRNA vaccine technology is completely different from the technology they use to create chimera viruses

webdoodle 4y ago

Its bioweapons testing, and it is a crime against humanity.

possiblydrunk 4y ago

Derek Lowe expresses a narrow definition of GOF to make his point and defend the research. Interestingly, using his definition, no proposed experiment could be classified as GOF because his definition depends on a successful outcome where a more pathogenic virus is produced which can only be determined after the fact. He misses the point that there are various definitions of GOF, and more importantly, that the people concerned about the experiments aren't concerned about the precise definition of GOF -- they are concerned with experiments that might reasonably generate successful GOF mutations. "In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if the U.S. policy is intended to apply to only a small subset of such work." [0] "...experiments that encompass all influenza viruses, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV that can be reasonably anticipated to increase pathogenicity or transmissibility in mammalian species" [1] [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_28 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_28 [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_30 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/#sec_30

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
autokad 4y ago
- VectorLock 4y ago
  They will then vehemently defend how important it was for them to make airborne hyper-HIV because it will then help us understand how to protect us from airborne hyper-HIV.
gus_massa 4y ago
Does your definition include attenuated virus like the used in the oral polio vaccine?
- possiblydrunk 4y ago

epivosism 4y ago

Author has a reasonably open mind on virus origins, article from may 2021 https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/coronavirus-origins https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/coronavirus-origin... He's not circling the wagons defending natural origins in the above.

chubs 4y ago
If there's anything I've learned growing up in various churches... the people who aren't open-minded, aren't worth listening to. Thanks for highlighting that this author seems be worth listening to.
- splistud 4y ago

slt2021 4y ago

if one of these chimera viruses leaks - you can easily sell vaccine for $1000 per shot. Easy money printing machine: keep making new viruses, keep making new vaccines, make $$$

gweinberg 4y ago

Similarly, it wasn't Russian Roulette because the chamber the hammer fell on wasn't even loaded!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

xupybd 4y ago

>But before jumping out of your chair, consider that when these mice were exposed to the original Wuhan coronavirus that 100% of them died. Well that is very different to the first news I saw about this. Tim Pool reported that in the first test no mice died. I guess I have to be more careful about what I listen to.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chatterhead 4y ago

Here is the musical version of this author's argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-1_9-z9rbY

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

It's very easy to get frightened about virological research if one doesn't know much about virology. Viruses are scary. Scientists altering viruses in the lab conjures up scenes from horror flicks. Then you read a bit about virology, and you realize that most virological research involves altering viruses, and that these sorts of experiments are orders of magnitude less likely to lead to a super strain outbreak than the millions of people around the world who right now have SARS-CoV-2 replicating in their throats, and who are walking around maskless, breathing at other people. If you want to gain a bit of familiarity with virology in your free time or during your commute, I recommend listening to This Week in Virology: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
teh_klev 4y ago
> I recommend listening to This Week in Virology: https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ I agree, Vincent and his regulars are fantastic science communicators. I started listening to TWiV just before the Coronavirus kicked off when there were early reports of something going on in Wuhan. I also liked that he published his virology lectures with updates each year on YouTube. The Q&A livestream[0] is also quite entertaining, Amy Rosenfeld is quite a character (it sadly doesn't get published as a podcast). [0]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGhmZX2NKiNmAaXoQ4kCU3ddmbpdq_CLX https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGhmZX2NKiNmAaXoQ4kCU...

AzzieElbab 4y ago

marshray 4y ago
No.
- AzzieElbab 4y ago
  How about only those making existing viruses more contagious and deadly?
  - mise_en_place 4y ago
    The proverbial genie is out of the bottle I think. Anyone with a high school chemistry set can engage in these same types of experiments. There are even tutorials for biohacking w/ CRISPR on YouTube.

rolph 4y ago

this is recombination, portions of virus are swapped around, in this case an omicron spike, with wuhan backbone. this sort of manipulation can produce gain of function when there is interplay between the recombined elements, most often it is simply a recombination of functions. to split hairs, the wuhan "backbone" [not spike] gained function of omicron spike, but lost function of wuhan spike. gain of function doesnt have to be so dramatic. there is a non spike region, of coronavirus that modulates virus/interferon signaling dynamics, modification of a small number of, [as in 2-3] codons will produce lethality that itself is not gain of function it is potentiation. a clear cut case of gain of function would be a recombination of wuhan backbone with chimeric SARS-MERS spike that retains both target specificities [ACE2-DPP4]

tinus_hn 4y ago

In other news, science can’t be expected to know how one can be protected from the coronavirus, because it’s new and nothing is known. However, humans manipulating the virus in a lab is perfectly safe and fine and responsible and can in no way lead or have lead to the virus escaping that lab. I’m not quite convinced.

basicplus2 4y ago

Main argument is it is less dangerous.. discovered AFTER creating it.

pcdoodle 4y ago

What a cringe thing to work on with your life.

autokad 4y ago

I said this that got flagged: > That's how they do, they play games with words. I can imagine them making an airborne version of HIV that only kills 80% of infected "well its not gain of function because it kills less than the original strain" stay classy with your censorship. edit: and apparently someone has a script that auto downvotes. doubt anyone read this days old comment section within seconds of my post.