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 sci

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.