I don't think you are interpreting his definition of GOF correctly. I think he would agree with the definition provided by the NIH that you quoted. Looking at D

I don't think you are interpreting his definition of GOF correctly. I think he would agree with the definition provided by the NIH that you quoted. Looking at Derek Lowe's quote here: > So this was not a gain-of-function experiment, and it did not appear to make a more dangerous virus. He seems to be making two separate claims: 1. This research is not GOF 2. This research did accidentally make a more dangerous strain. And that because of both reasons we should not be worried. The article up to this point was explaining why the research was unlikely to produce a more dangerous strain, and hence why he could describe it as "not GOF". This is not based on outcomes, but on a reasonable assessment of the risks ahead of time.