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 whic

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.