7 ms·

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. Pl

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...

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...