4 ms·

Ask HN: Why is gain of function research allowed given possibility of lab leak?

12 points by amichail 4y ago

Given that a lab leak may have led to the pandemic, shouldn't gain of function research be banned for now?

andrewfromx 4y ago
I asked GPT and it said: "gain of function research has led to important scientific discoveries and medical advancements, such as the development of antiviral drugs and vaccines. Banning all gain of function research could have negative consequences for public health and scientific progress. While there is a possibility of a lab leak, it's important to note that not all gain of function research is created equal. There are different levels of risk involved, and not all research carries the same level of risk for accidental release or deliberate misuse. There are strict guidelines and regulations in place to ensure that the research is conducted safely and responsibly. These regulations include stringent biosafety protocols and oversight by independent committees to evaluate the risks and benefits of proposed research."
- d23 4y ago
  While I do think this is better than just pasting the contents in by itself without attributing GPT, I don't think it's a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  Sources for these claims? ;) But seriously, this is what I’d ask a human, and ChatGPT can’t provide.
  - lioeters 4y ago
    Oh, ChatGPT is plenty capable of providing sources, real and imagined.
- alfalfasprout 4y ago
  No one cares what ChatGPT has to say. Low value comment.
oslac 4y ago
It is amusing how history is being now rewritten as "We All Always Agreed Lab Leak Was the Real Source".
- bigmattystyles 4y ago
  It feels easy compared to the implications of the alternative - from excessive animal husbandry, excessive use of medicines in livestock all the way to wet markets.
- DrThunder 4y ago
  Yep, this post would have been flagged and removed just a few months ago. But, hey now that the source of truth known as WaPo has said it, we're all good.
  - Zurrrrr 4y ago
    It's really amazing seeing how much stuff gets flagged and removed as though even discussing it is dangerous.
- lioeters 4y ago
  And also amusing how we're brushing under the carpet the way the lab leak theory was censored heavily on mass/social media as misinformation debunked by fact checkers.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  It's horrifyingly amusing how much attention people are paying to what the source is. The source is likely unknowable and not useful. What we should be caring about is where the next pandemic is going to come from. Lab leak, bush meat or factory farm are all highly plausible alternatives. "It has been said critically that there is a tendency in many armies to spend the peace time studying how to fight the last war." - J.L. Schley We need to fight the next war, not the last war.
  - DrThunder 4y ago
    A lab leak virus that's been genetically engineered to infect easier, kill faster, etc. is quite different than a naturally occurring virus. So, if we have gof research going on and it's being covered up we most definitely should be worrying about where it came from because it's likely to happen in that same area again if nothing is put in place to prevent in the future. In this case, every bit of political maneuvering we have in place to punish China and whoever else was involved in ruining the lives of millions for almost 3 years SHOULD happen. No, we shouldn't just move on. The only people saying stuff like this are the ones that were wrong and/or malicious in their actions regarding COVID. They don't get off that easy.
bigmattystyles 4y ago
Better question would be 'can you ban it'? I'm genuinely asking but afaik, it's not like nuclear sites that can be detected and then asked to be inspected. Nation states will likely do it anyways if there's no easy detection manner. So, sure 'ban' it, but do develop very strong protocols around it. Bring it out in the open as much as is possible.
DrThunder 4y ago
The theory is that they'll better be able to fight future variations of X-disease because they've been able to study it. Personally, I think that's a bunch of bs. The stuff they're doing to these diseases isn't likely to occur naturally. I suppose you could make the argument they're preparing to stop some possible bio-weapon that might be created. I also think a lot of it has to do with money. In Pfizer's case they're wanting to get the jump on vaccine sales down the road. If they're putting that much money into creating a vaccine for a variant created through gof... well that opens a lot of doors for nefarious activity and the possibility of someone intentionally releasing it goes up.
- bglazer 4y ago
  Has Pfizer done any gain of function research?
  - DrThunder 4y ago
    A Pfizer employee was caught discussing it with a undercover reporter. Is it 100% proven they are? No, but the employee and company tried to cover up his words quite quickly. There a bunch of fact checkers saying the guy was just speaking "theoretically" but these are also the same fact-checkers that repeatedly tried to tell us COVID came from a bat when it's been clear COVID was genetically engineered.
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
What we need to do is make sure that the process is more transparent. If every approved lab had to log its research with a global watchdog we'd have a better idea where to start when things inevitable go wrong. From discussion before the Wuhan lab was built: "worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Tim Trevan, founder of CHROME Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting in Damascus, Maryland, says that an open culture is important to keeping BSL-4 labs safe, and he questions how easy this will be in China, where society emphasizes hierarchy. “Diversity of viewpoint, flat structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important,” he says." - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21487 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21487
cameldrv 4y ago
Amazingly just yesterday the guys on This Week in Virology spent an hour complaining about potential new safety regulations for research on potential pandemic viruses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNoFmZxEogQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNoFmZxEogQ
bglazer 4y ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285583/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285583/ The link above is a fairly readable summary of a conference in which academics debated the need for gain of function research. As you can see, this was not a settled topic, and even some of the supporters of GoF research admit doubts about its utility. To summarize the paper I posted: 1. Gain of function research, broadly construed, also includes adapting viruses to live "in culture", i.e. in a dish of cells. That's a fundamentally useful and necessary part of research, so a blanket ban could unnecessarily complicate basic research. 2. GoF is useful for evaluating the potential impacts of mutations observed in the wild. Like, we see a particular mutation circulating, but its significance is unknown, so we introduce it into a model virus in a lab to test what impact it has. This helps us decide which strains we should choose to develop vaccinations for. This can also be done prospectively, GoF can identify particularly nasty variants, which we can then prioritize for more intense intervention if they're observed in the wild. 3. There's a basic research interest in understanding the molecular details of how viruses infect humans. GoF allows researchers to probe this much more easily than the random sampling we get from wild viruses. This research has led (in part) to basic insights in virology, like the role of the furin polybasic cleavage site in coronaviruseses in increasing virulence.

12 points by amichail 4y ago

Given that a lab leak may have led to the pandemic, shouldn't gain of function research be banned for now?

I asked GPT and it said: "gain of function research has led to important scientific discoveries and medical advancements, such as the development of antiviral drugs and vaccines. Banning all gain of function research could have negative consequences for public health and scientific progress. While there is a possibility of a lab leak, it's important to note that not all gain of function research is created equal. There are different levels of risk involved, and not all research carries the same level of risk for accidental release or deliberate misuse. There are strict guidelines and regulations in place to ensure that the research is conducted safely and responsibly. These regulations include stringent biosafety protocols and oversight by independent committees to evaluate the risks and benefits of proposed research."

d23 4y ago
While I do think this is better than just pasting the contents in by itself without attributing GPT, I don't think it's a worthwhile contribution to the discussion.
jtbayly 4y ago
Sources for these claims? ;) But seriously, this is what I’d ask a human, and ChatGPT can’t provide.
- lioeters 4y ago
  Oh, ChatGPT is plenty capable of providing sources, real and imagined.
alfalfasprout 4y ago
No one cares what ChatGPT has to say. Low value comment.

oslac 4y ago

It is amusing how history is being now rewritten as "We All Always Agreed Lab Leak Was the Real Source".

bigmattystyles 4y ago
It feels easy compared to the implications of the alternative - from excessive animal husbandry, excessive use of medicines in livestock all the way to wet markets.
DrThunder 4y ago
Yep, this post would have been flagged and removed just a few months ago. But, hey now that the source of truth known as WaPo has said it, we're all good.
- Zurrrrr 4y ago
  It's really amazing seeing how much stuff gets flagged and removed as though even discussing it is dangerous.
lioeters 4y ago
And also amusing how we're brushing under the carpet the way the lab leak theory was censored heavily on mass/social media as misinformation debunked by fact checkers.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
It's horrifyingly amusing how much attention people are paying to what the source is. The source is likely unknowable and not useful. What we should be caring about is where the next pandemic is going to come from. Lab leak, bush meat or factory farm are all highly plausible alternatives. "It has been said critically that there is a tendency in many armies to spend the peace time studying how to fight the last war." - J.L. Schley We need to fight the next war, not the last war.
- DrThunder 4y ago
  A lab leak virus that's been genetically engineered to infect easier, kill faster, etc. is quite different than a naturally occurring virus. So, if we have gof research going on and it's being covered up we most definitely should be worrying about where it came from because it's likely to happen in that same area again if nothing is put in place to prevent in the future. In this case, every bit of political maneuvering we have in place to punish China and whoever else was involved in ruining the lives of millions for almost 3 years SHOULD happen. No, we shouldn't just move on. The only people saying stuff like this are the ones that were wrong and/or malicious in their actions regarding COVID. They don't get off that easy.

bigmattystyles 4y ago

Better question would be 'can you ban it'? I'm genuinely asking but afaik, it's not like nuclear sites that can be detected and then asked to be inspected. Nation states will likely do it anyways if there's no easy detection manner. So, sure 'ban' it, but do develop very strong protocols around it. Bring it out in the open as much as is possible.

DrThunder 4y ago

The theory is that they'll better be able to fight future variations of X-disease because they've been able to study it. Personally, I think that's a bunch of bs. The stuff they're doing to these diseases isn't likely to occur naturally. I suppose you could make the argument they're preparing to stop some possible bio-weapon that might be created. I also think a lot of it has to do with money. In Pfizer's case they're wanting to get the jump on vaccine sales down the road. If they're putting that much money into creating a vaccine for a variant created through gof... well that opens a lot of doors for nefarious activity and the possibility of someone intentionally releasing it goes up.

bglazer 4y ago
Has Pfizer done any gain of function research?
- DrThunder 4y ago
  A Pfizer employee was caught discussing it with a undercover reporter. Is it 100% proven they are? No, but the employee and company tried to cover up his words quite quickly. There a bunch of fact checkers saying the guy was just speaking "theoretically" but these are also the same fact-checkers that repeatedly tried to tell us COVID came from a bat when it's been clear COVID was genetically engineered.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

What we need to do is make sure that the process is more transparent. If every approved lab had to log its research with a global watchdog we'd have a better idea where to start when things inevitable go wrong. From discussion before the Wuhan lab was built: "worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Tim Trevan, founder of CHROME Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting in Damascus, Maryland, says that an open culture is important to keeping BSL-4 labs safe, and he questions how easy this will be in China, where society emphasizes hierarchy. “Diversity of viewpoint, flat structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important,” he says." - https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21487 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2017.21487

cameldrv 4y ago

Amazingly just yesterday the guys on This Week in Virology spent an hour complaining about potential new safety regulations for research on potential pandemic viruses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNoFmZxEogQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNoFmZxEogQ

bglazer 4y ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285583/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285583/ The link above is a fairly readable summary of a conference in which academics debated the need for gain of function research. As you can see, this was not a settled topic, and even some of the supporters of GoF research admit doubts about its utility. To summarize the paper I posted: 1. Gain of function research, broadly construed, also includes adapting viruses to live "in culture", i.e. in a dish of cells. That's a fundamentally useful and necessary part of research, so a blanket ban could unnecessarily complicate basic research. 2. GoF is useful for evaluating the potential impacts of mutations observed in the wild. Like, we see a particular mutation circulating, but its significance is unknown, so we introduce it into a model virus in a lab to test what impact it has. This helps us decide which strains we should choose to develop vaccinations for. This can also be done prospectively, GoF can identify particularly nasty variants, which we can then prioritize for more intense intervention if they're observed in the wild. 3. There's a basic research interest in understanding the molecular details of how viruses infect humans. GoF allows researchers to probe this much more easily than the random sampling we get from wild viruses. This research has led (in part) to basic insights in virology, like the role of the furin polybasic cleavage site in coronaviruseses in increasing virulence.