4 ms·

I truthfully do not see the value (vs risk) in this kind of research. Humanity is too careless to do this kind of thing safely. Figure out better ways to mode

I truthfully do not see the value (vs risk) in this kind of research. Humanity is too careless to do this kind of thing safely. Figure out better ways to model this in software instead, IM (uninformed) O.

mikeyouse 4y ago
A general defense is that nature is a far better incubator and gain-of-function laboratory that we could ever hope to be. A few billion birds have caught bird flu in the past decade, so we're talking about trillions and trillions of viruses constantly undergoing mutation in close proximity with farm mammals and humans all over the world... If we know the genetics of what turns a bird flu into one transmissible to humans, it's probably better to "get in front of it" rather than just awaiting that mutation to happen somewhere in nature for the first time.
- adrianb 4y ago
  Trillions and trillions of mutations and still the most dangerous H5N1 viruses were created a decade ago by Fouchier and Kawaoka. And how did that help us prepare for the inevitable natural evolution of the same virus?
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Sure, but that's only if you restrict it to H5N1 instead of looking at the history of Influenza A and things like the Spanish Flu, which was the most deadly disease in human history and derived from a mutated bird flu. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058281 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058281 Even still, H5N1 has repeatedly infected humans in the wild... the most famous case in Hong Kong infecting 18 people and killing 6 of those. So you can make the case that GoF is irresponsible given the stakes, but it seems important to acknowledge that you're basically just hoping these horrific viruses don't mutate as we predict them to. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11938498/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11938498/
    - gensym 4y ago
      That would be the case if GoF research was necessary to defend against these viruses, but that’s not the case. AFAIK, GoF research played no part in the development of vaccines and treatments for Covid.
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        Sure, but it took over a year, trillions of dollars of economic disruption and millions of lives to develop the vaccines — its all balance of probabilities and costs. Some of the proposed research that was GoF adjacent (that was never actually performed) was to develop pseudo viruses more similar to hACE strains that would evoke an immune response in horseshoe bats, effectively vaccinating them. Would the small, but certain, risk of an accident from that research been worth it if it could’ve averted the last 3 years and every future sarbecovirus pandemic? It still might be the case that we shouldn’t risk GoF - but the simplistic “hurr durr, greedy virologists just want their grant money and don’t understand the risk” takes are childishly simplistic. There is nobody on earth more attuned to the risk of pandemics than the people doing this research, it’s why they’re doing the research.
- programmarchy 4y ago
  [flagged]
- taneq 4y ago
  That’s a terrible defence. Evolution isn’t directed. Gain of function research is like trying to breed animals for specific features, it probably reduces the disease’s overall fitness but it sure could increase its fitness in humans because that’s what they’re breeding for.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    We’ve had dozens of zoonotic jumps with bird flu that we know about, and surely thousands that we don’t know about. The mere proximity of humans and birds (and birds and other mammals) means that you don’t need directed evolution. Random mutation + recombination with other strains of influenza already present in humans and animals means that a single “winning” combination will inevitably spillover again. And has trillions of opportunities to do so. When virologists talk about the inevitability of pandemics, this is the exact mechanism that worries them. Not doing the GoF work is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll avoid these strains. I’m not convinced it’s worth the energy either, but playing ostrich isn’t a viable alternative.
bboygravity 4y ago
There's a chance that being more informed might help form a different opinion more aligned with most informed people.
- kbelder 4y ago
  I once heard an ad sponsored by the American Podiatric Medical Association that listed the benefits of going to your podiatrist, and concluded with a recommendation that everyone should get a podiatric examination once per year, just to maintain foot health. I'm sure that seemed intensely reasonable to all the heavily informed podiatrists that were involved.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  There's also the chance being more informed would lead to the same basic conclusion, and there's the chance that most informed people actually share his opinion (unbeknownst to you).
- taneq 4y ago
  There’s also a chance that most informed people do this kind of research at work, and would like to keep their jobs.
- throw009 4y ago
  There's a chance the most informed people's salary depends on not understanding this. It takes a special kind of person to proclaim their profession is a danger to humanity and needs to be curtailed.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  If only information granted wisdom
LatteLazy 4y ago
As long as china and other countries refuse to operate sanitary food chains, the risk they represent will be 1000s of times higher than a high security lab. That is why so many zoonotic diseases come from such places and so few from the rest of the world. Don't "strain out a fly and swallow a camel"...
- geysersam 4y ago
  That, or because a fifth of the worlds population live there.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - khazhoux 4y ago
    Why is that racist? It may be inaccurate or unproven, but that doesn't make it racist. Isn't the leading theory that COVID-19 originated/spread from Wuhan's seafood market (with poor sanitation standards)?
    - scheme271 4y ago
      If you don't understand the reasons for why things are done a certain way and just assume that Chinese or whoever prefer to keep unsanitary conditions, then you won't solve the problem. Wet markets reduce the incidence of food poisoning by minimizing the time raw meat is kept at room temperature. If refrigeration isn't readily available, this is probably the best solution. You can find wet markets throughout the world, it's not just limited top China and Asia.
      - khazhoux 4y ago
        But I didn't say people "preferred" to be unsanitary, and it doesn't actually matter why things are done one way or another. COVID-19 is believed to have originated in a live-animal market in Wuhan. I would argue (and forgive me if this is racist) that a market where some vendor sells diseased animals as food that will kill 7 million people (and shut down the world for almost two years) qualifies as "unsanitary."

mikeyouse 4y ago

A general defense is that nature is a far better incubator and gain-of-function laboratory that we could ever hope to be. A few billion birds have caught bird flu in the past decade, so we're talking about trillions and trillions of viruses constantly undergoing mutation in close proximity with farm mammals and humans all over the world... If we know the genetics of what turns a bird flu into one transmissible to humans, it's probably better to "get in front of it" rather than just awaiting that mutation to happen somewhere in nature for the first time.

adrianb 4y ago
Trillions and trillions of mutations and still the most dangerous H5N1 viruses were created a decade ago by Fouchier and Kawaoka. And how did that help us prepare for the inevitable natural evolution of the same virus?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Sure, but that's only if you restrict it to H5N1 instead of looking at the history of Influenza A and things like the Spanish Flu, which was the most deadly disease in human history and derived from a mutated bird flu. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058281 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058281 Even still, H5N1 has repeatedly infected humans in the wild... the most famous case in Hong Kong infecting 18 people and killing 6 of those. So you can make the case that GoF is irresponsible given the stakes, but it seems important to acknowledge that you're basically just hoping these horrific viruses don't mutate as we predict them to. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11938498/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11938498/
  - gensym 4y ago
    That would be the case if GoF research was necessary to defend against these viruses, but that’s not the case. AFAIK, GoF research played no part in the development of vaccines and treatments for Covid.
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Sure, but it took over a year, trillions of dollars of economic disruption and millions of lives to develop the vaccines — its all balance of probabilities and costs. Some of the proposed research that was GoF adjacent (that was never actually performed) was to develop pseudo viruses more similar to hACE strains that would evoke an immune response in horseshoe bats, effectively vaccinating them. Would the small, but certain, risk of an accident from that research been worth it if it could’ve averted the last 3 years and every future sarbecovirus pandemic? It still might be the case that we shouldn’t risk GoF - but the simplistic “hurr durr, greedy virologists just want their grant money and don’t understand the risk” takes are childishly simplistic. There is nobody on earth more attuned to the risk of pandemics than the people doing this research, it’s why they’re doing the research.
programmarchy 4y ago
[flagged]
taneq 4y ago
That’s a terrible defence. Evolution isn’t directed. Gain of function research is like trying to breed animals for specific features, it probably reduces the disease’s overall fitness but it sure could increase its fitness in humans because that’s what they’re breeding for.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  We’ve had dozens of zoonotic jumps with bird flu that we know about, and surely thousands that we don’t know about. The mere proximity of humans and birds (and birds and other mammals) means that you don’t need directed evolution. Random mutation + recombination with other strains of influenza already present in humans and animals means that a single “winning” combination will inevitably spillover again. And has trillions of opportunities to do so. When virologists talk about the inevitability of pandemics, this is the exact mechanism that worries them. Not doing the GoF work is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll avoid these strains. I’m not convinced it’s worth the energy either, but playing ostrich isn’t a viable alternative.

bboygravity 4y ago

There's a chance that being more informed might help form a different opinion more aligned with most informed people.

kbelder 4y ago
I once heard an ad sponsored by the American Podiatric Medical Association that listed the benefits of going to your podiatrist, and concluded with a recommendation that everyone should get a podiatric examination once per year, just to maintain foot health. I'm sure that seemed intensely reasonable to all the heavily informed podiatrists that were involved.
khazhoux 4y ago
There's also the chance being more informed would lead to the same basic conclusion, and there's the chance that most informed people actually share his opinion (unbeknownst to you).
taneq 4y ago
There’s also a chance that most informed people do this kind of research at work, and would like to keep their jobs.
throw009 4y ago
There's a chance the most informed people's salary depends on not understanding this. It takes a special kind of person to proclaim their profession is a danger to humanity and needs to be curtailed.
AbrahamParangi 4y ago
If only information granted wisdom

LatteLazy 4y ago

As long as china and other countries refuse to operate sanitary food chains, the risk they represent will be 1000s of times higher than a high security lab. That is why so many zoonotic diseases come from such places and so few from the rest of the world. Don't "strain out a fly and swallow a camel"...

geysersam 4y ago
That, or because a fifth of the worlds population live there.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
[flagged]
- khazhoux 4y ago
  Why is that racist? It may be inaccurate or unproven, but that doesn't make it racist. Isn't the leading theory that COVID-19 originated/spread from Wuhan's seafood market (with poor sanitation standards)?
  - scheme271 4y ago
    If you don't understand the reasons for why things are done a certain way and just assume that Chinese or whoever prefer to keep unsanitary conditions, then you won't solve the problem. Wet markets reduce the incidence of food poisoning by minimizing the time raw meat is kept at room temperature. If refrigeration isn't readily available, this is probably the best solution. You can find wet markets throughout the world, it's not just limited top China and Asia.
    - khazhoux 4y ago
      But I didn't say people "preferred" to be unsanitary, and it doesn't actually matter why things are done one way or another. COVID-19 is believed to have originated in a live-animal market in Wuhan. I would argue (and forgive me if this is racist) that a market where some vendor sells diseased animals as food that will kill 7 million people (and shut down the world for almost two years) qualifies as "unsanitary."