3 ms·

No it isn't.

• justapassenger 4y ago
  To study how they evolve and their potential to become a problem? Yeah, that’s the only way to go. And given how fast viruses evolve, there’s no real alternative.
  • benreesman 4y ago
    I think everyone agrees that observing live virus in the lab is a critical (if dangerous) part of studying them. Intentionally engineering them as high as possible on transmissibility and morbidity is bioweapon development being money laundered through conventional science: it’s an insane thing to do. Leaving SARS-COV-2 out of it completely: there have indisputably been other leaks. It’s the height of irresponsibility and shortsightedness to engineer civilization-ending viruses, which is why it’s banned under multiple international conventions that GoF is a workaround for. You don’t need a vaccine for the fucking superflu if you never develop the fucking superflu.
    • justapassenger 4y ago
      And you assume that flu won’t evolve in nature? And can only start to learn about superflu once everyone is locked down at home? Also, gain function refers to basically any change to pathogen. Banning it is like banning 5G, because it could be used to steer nano bots. And you also heavily overstate our abilities to actually mutate viruses in a way we’d want.
• mrguyorama 4y ago
  Nature has no qualms about performing GOF research if we don't do it. How do we protect ourselves from future viral and biological evolution otherwise? Virus's evolve literally every day, and if we don't find a way to build tools, processes, and countermeasures, we will absolutely be strongly harmed by a future one. This always feels like the "we can't afford to fix climate change so we just will ignore the problem" take.