15 ms·
NIH restarts bat virus grant
- MeteorMarc 3y agoObligatory: What could possibly go wrong?
- op00to 3y agoBetter to study and be prepared, than to stick our head in the sand and pretend emerging infectious disease aren't a recurrent factor in our lives.
- anoxor 3y agoI mean, modifying a bat virus to be more infectious to human and then doing so in a lab that only requires masks not full body suits. How many millions died, how many suffered, what did we lose? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that is a terrible idea. “Sticking our head in the sand” appears to not fit this use case very well
- dablweb 3y agoThat's not really the case here. Gain of function research can not be justified using this argument. There are so many potential mutations that putting specific evolutionary pressure on a virus in order to "prevent" only those specific effects has such low efficacy considering the size of the problem space. GOF research has provided very little in terms of benefits, and many argue it's simply been a way to disguise bioweapons research after the Geneva convention.
- torstenvl 3y ago(Agree with you, but - sorry - as a practitioner in the law of armed conflict, I have to point out that the Biological Weapons Convention didn't take effect until more than a quarter century after the Geneva Conventions of 1949.)
- eli 3y agoThe NIH, the scientists doing the research, and most other experts in the field disagree. Partisan politicians are the ones yelling about how dangerous it is. I think I'll listen to the experts.
- justrealist 3y agoDo you say the same thing about AGI?
- vinyl7 3y agoYou mean the ones who get their paycheck from this research don't want to lose their job?
- ifyoubuildit 3y agoDo you really know what "most" of the experts agree or disagree with? It seems like you'd have to be an expert yourself to know that.
- nradov 3y agoAre you referring to "experts" in the field such as Peter Daszak? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_%28COVID-19%29?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_%28COVID-19%29?w...
- jonhohle 3y ago[flagged]
- jonhohle 3y ago[flagged]
- hammock 3y agoEven if that’s the case, which could be possible, it would be nice to have some accountability for the accident that led to the covid pandemic and lockdowns, and a transparent accounting of why even after all that, the risk from not doing this research is greater than that of restarting it
- eli 3y agoThe evidence for the lab leak theory is weak. You're assuming facts that most experts dispute.
- laverya 3y agoThe evidence for every other theory is even weaker by any objective standard, though. EDIT: the evidence in favor of wet market zoonosis is what, exactly? "It's always been zoonosis in the past" plus "we (claim to have) first found this in a wet market" and maybe also "there's some RNA fragments in the wet market samples that show interesting animals plus covid"? As far as I'm aware that's it.
- jonhohle 3y ago[flagged]
- eli 3y agoNo, I mean a majority of all experts around the world. And I don't find it particularly damning that the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was involved in the commission of one of many studies to determine the origin of an infectious disease.
- jonhohle 3y agoHaving the primary author not attach their name to the paper that they’ve secretly been asked to write and disseminate is typical?
- kklisura 3y agoSure, but then if we're gonna create and study viruses that can erase significant percentage of our population, why not do that on some remote island with one month of required onboarding/offboarding quarantine for all of the scientists involved?
- Eumenes 3y agoThey literally study viruses that don’t infect humans but they purposely mutate them so they can study the “what if they mutate in real life” - this is cover to study bioweapons
- hgsgm 3y agoIf you want bioweapons, you'd start with viruses that conveniently already infect humans, and probably wouldn't indiscriminately infect the whole world including yourself.
- program_whiz 3y agocounter example: we won't know how to fight a robot apocalypse unless we go ahead and develop some super-intelligent kill bots ourselves, so we can train against it and develop strategies. Given enough time and random variation, someone or some government is bound to create them, so we should not stick our heads in the sand or let fear-mongering stand in the way of research. In reality COVID-19 required several key mutations to be as harmful and to bind as effectively to human cells as it did. The likelihood of all of these mutations occurring naturally, in animals only, without intermediate variants to observe and develop immunity against, is very small. If only 64 amino acids must mutate exactly correctly to create the deadly variant then it would require 4^64 or 2^128 mutations, which is a large number. Assuming it mutates 100B times per year, that's still more years 3e27 years. For example, this experiment on more transmissible HIV requires hundreds of acids (600-1000, and a 32 amino prefix). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836558/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2836558/ The point being that creating extremely unlikely events to "see what would happen" is only justified if the risk of the observation is less than the natural risk of the event. If the risk of a world-ending pandemic is 1e-128 per year, and the risk due to human-made viruses is 0.1%, then "not sticking your head in the sand" has raised your risk by an astronomical factor.
- baja_blast 3y agoThe idea that the mutations that happen in a lab setting whether direct editing or serial passaging would ever resemble anything that would happen in the wild is as likely as expecting a store bought banana evolving in the wild.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shri_krishna 3y agoHere we go again! As if one pandemic wasn't enough! Ridiculous!
- hammock 3y ago[flagged]
- nathancahill 3y agoDid a COVID write this?
- bheadmaster 3y agoBy some measurements the Holocaust was a walloping success. What particular measurement you choose is very important, so "some measurements" is basically meaningless.
- vxNsr 3y ago[flagged]
- ed25519FUUU 3y agoWhat would it even mean if we created covid 19 in a lab and it was accidentally released? Would it change anything? Would anyone be held responsible?
- echelon 3y agoA seriously creepy thought that I've had (that I certainly don't agree with) - It could be a way for governments to quickly and affordably "cull the herd" of expensive to support elders, immune compromised, sick, and infirm individuals. In doing so, it would free up capital, resources, housing, jobs, etc. for the younger workforce. This is of course only a creative musing, not a proposal for an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
- shri_krishna 3y ago"I try not to think about it too much. But I have guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to" [1] - Sam Altman, OpenAI [1]: https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-ceo-survivalist-prepper https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-ceo-survivalist-prepper
- 462436347 3y agoI can't for the life of me understand the personality cult of Sam Altman. He gives off sociopathic vibes, and looks (probably thanks to plastic surgery) creepy.
- dudeDDRrulez 3y agoWEF Young Global Leader, class of 2016
- water554 3y agoIt's important that people know the truth.
- 3y ago
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoAt what point does a conspiracy become a fact? This results in another pandemic, it's not going to be pretty when gov't demands lockdowns.
- peteradio 3y agoConspiracy and fact are orthogonal descriptors.
- jMyles 3y agoI don't understand this concept. I see it all over the internet. But I don't get it. At what point did we stop believing it was possible for people to conspire to commit crimes? Nobody disputes, for example, that the convictions of the Watergate conspirators - for the charge of conspiracy - was based in fact. So how is it that we can now say that fact and conspiracy can't be part of the same pattern? It's true that a huge majority of conspiracy theories are bogus and lack evidence. But it's also true that, albeit rarely, conspiracies do occur.
- Name_Chawps 3y agoOrthogonal doesn't mean opposites, it means they're perpendicular i.e. unrelated.
- jMyles 3y agoI understand. But they're not unrelated. Sometimes a fact pattern reveals a conspiracy.
- Name_Chawps 3y agoYour previous response indicates that you did not understand, and you are now backtracking.
- 3y ago
- netbioserror 3y agoI love the appeal to the "independence" of science from politics, after what may have been the single most materially and socially destructive scientific disaster since the invention of the atom bomb. We'll just act like none of that ever happened and continue with impunity.
- ethanbond 3y agoAct like what didn’t happen?
- jeremyjh 3y agoThey were trying to create SARS-Cov-2 to study methods of treating or managing it, and quite likely they succeeded only in creating it. We may never know for sure, but if you read the original grant proposal its clear they were trying to engineer a variant of bat coronviruses that could cross into humans.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago>they were trying to engineer a variant of bat coronviruses that could cross into humans. Right, because bat coronaviruses very famously have never crossed into humans. Google "SARS-CoV-1".
- runsWphotons 3y agoSARS cov 1 never caused a global pandemic. There were less than 10,000 cases and less than 1000 deaths. It wasn't specifically engineered to easily bind to human receptors, so this probably limited its reach.
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoThe reason it never caused a global pandemic had nothing to do with how transmissible it was, and everything to do with early detection and limited Draconian measures to contain it. SARS-CoV-2 was not only not engineered to bind to human receptors, it was not engineered at all and there is no credible person or source that makes this claim.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shon 3y agoFirst, nice name OP. ;) Second, are there any bio people here who can weigh-in on why this is a good idea and how the potential benefits outweigh the risks? Bioweapons seem like a terrible idea in general. The worst case scenario of any weapon system is that it’s used against its creators and we humans aren’t that good at controlling biology. So what’s the benefit?
- criticalmass2 3y agoThis has nothing to do with bioweapons. The reality is that throughout all of human history, viruses have evolved organically in the environment in such a way that they are infectious to humans. Viruses will continue to evolve and future pandemics will happen. This research is attempting to study how viruses might evolve in a way that is particularly concerning to humans so that we can be more prepared in terms of creating vaccines and understanding the preventive measures that can be taken in future pandemics.
- shon 3y ago[flagged]
- criticalmass2 3y agoThe downside would be no vaccines for any diseases, as all vaccines are derived from "gain of function" research. There is also not conclusive evidence that this latest pandemic was the result of a laboratory accident. Every other catastrophic pandemic in human history emerged "naturally", and many more will continue to do so.
- baja_blast 3y agoBut vaccine development can only be done with existing viruses circulating in humans. The mutations to the existing virus to test immunity escape are minimal and less risky. But mutating unknown animal/bat viruses to be transmissible towards humans to see how infectious it can possibly be only creates new risks, because if any of those viruses get out of the lab there will be no vaccine (since you can't test the effectiveness of a vaccine without circulation in humans) and to make matters worse the viruses are already predated towards humans! SARS/MERS were easily contained because the virus needed to adapt and evolve before effectively spreading amongst humans. SARS2 was predated and highly infectious thus containment was impossible. Also if this research was so essentially, why does EcoHealth still to this day refuse to share their research/data? You'd think that would be useful to have publicly funded research to help with the worst pandemic in 100 years, but I guess not! So why take the risks?
- sillypuddy 3y agoWe should warn these agencies that gain of function research is like playing Russian Roulette, but it would go in one ear and out the other.
- galangalalgol 3y agoWhatvare the arguments for gain of function research? Is there any reason to think the mutations gained as a virus adapts to mice with human lung tissue will resemble the ones it makes when it crosses in the wild? Or is it kind of like the old giant nuke plants, a way to peace-wash war tech? Edit: Vouching for the reply wasn't enough to resurrect it. It was a claim with no support other than an appeal to authority, but that means you reply to it with a counter not bury it. It sidestepped the question of whether adapting an animal virus to humans has sufficient gain for the risk.
- criticalmass2 3y agoThe term “gain of function” is used by different people in different ways. It is a broad category of research and the misguided attempts to categorize it as dangerous in one broad stroke are not helpful. To quote Dr. Fauci: "If all gain-of-function stops, you will have no vaccines for flu. You will have no vaccines for any of the other diseases, because all of that manipulates a virus or a pathogen to gain a certain function to be able to make a vaccine."
- hgsgm 3y agoI love me a flu vaccine. But if Covid-19 was the cost, I'm not sure it's worth it. Also Fauci played a bit of Motte&Baily the other way, by defending ALL GoF research with that argument. People opposed to gain of function are specifically opposed to attempts to make viruses more communicable or more dangerous
- xyzzy123 3y agoThis seems disingenuous, afaik the contributions of GoF work (that enhances transmissibility, pathogenicity or immune escape of a virus) to widely deployed vaccines is minimal or zero. EDIT: if downvoter(s) could provide specific examples of how GoF experiments have materially contributed to the development of ANY deployed vaccine I would be grateful (and update my position). For "the vaccines stop if GoF stops" to be true, it should be possible to name at least one vaccine which critically relied on GoF research, right?
- DoreenMichele 3y agoSubtitle: Revised award to EcoHealth Alliance will no longer involve studies of hybrid coronaviruses FWIW. I don't know if that will make anyone feel any better about it.
- freedude 3y agoIt doesn't. Once bitten twice shy...
- unyttigfjelltol 3y agoEcoHealth should not be allowed to participate in Federal grants. If there is a reason we don't have confidence as a society where Covid came from, it's because of efforts taken by Ecohealth to short-circuit reasonable scientific inquiry. EcoHealth doesn't do science and should be banned.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoI think this your point is very important to highlight. I'm very uncomfortable with all the posts that posit "Covid came from the lab" is a conclusive fact. There is considerable evidence, and it's certainly plausible, that it did come from a lab, but it's likely we'll never know with certainty. That said, EcoHealth's cardinal sin was the Feb 2020 Lancet letter ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_(COVID-19) ). There was clear conflict of interest in that letter, and in retrospect it did huge damage for the effort to study the origins of Covid. Like the saying goes "it's not the crime, it's the cover up". While it's not 100% clear there was an "original crime", that letter certainly looks like a coverup. For this letter alone EcoHealth should be banned from getting federal grant money.
- hgsgm 3y agoIt's additionally a shame that instead of pursuing this legitimate angle, many politicians and billionaires went off the deep end with the "prosecute Fauci" ranting, which made people feel forced to defend the EcoHealth side out of a sense of civility.
- v0idzer0 3y agoNobody was forced to do anything. They defended ecohealth because they were told to do so by mainstream left wing media, who pushed that shaky narrative with no evidence purely because anything that disagreed with Trump was profitable
- jeremyjh 3y agoEvery "scientist" associated with that fact-free cover-up should have already ended their career in disgrace.
- lamacase 3y ago> The project no longer involves collecting new bat samples or working with live viruses. WIV has no role beyond contributing more than 300 whole and partial genome sequences of SARS-related bat coronaviruses from its collection, Daszak says. From the article there's also supposed to be additional review of further grants to deny anything that might look like gain of function research. My laymen's take is that monitoring viruses for spillover is still important, maybe more important than ever, and gain of function research has negligible benefits and probably shouldn't happen? On that basis, what's presented in this article seems to be on the right track.
- caned 3y ago> The project no longer involves collecting new bat samples or working with live viruses. WIV has no role beyond contributing more than 300 whole and partial genome sequences of SARS-related bat coronaviruses from its collection, Daszak says. I join others in their skepticism, but, as a layman, I'd like to know: Is this gain-of-function research as described? What are the risks if the research doesn't involve live viruses?
- TechBro8615 3y agoDoes it really matter? Given how much they've already obfuscated the semantics and definition of "gain of function," why should we trust that this time, they're really not doing anything resembling gain of function? And even if we could give them that benefit of the doubt, why should we? The board members of EcoHealth should be receiving federal prison sentences, not grant money.