3 ms·
The first thing we would have done would have been to put an immediate halt to all "gain of function" research - including all of the "gain of function" researc
by StanislavPetrov 3y ago
The first thing we would have done would have been to put an immediate halt to all "gain of function" research - including all of the "gain of function" research that is currently ongoing (that Fauci and his ilk insist isn't really "gain of function" research). This would include severe penalties for those who funneled money to third party researchers. Instead, the global health authorities peddled the absurd "wet market" hypothesis and continue(d) to pour money into "gain of function" research that makes another lab leak inevitable (at some point).
- dzader 3y ago[flagged]
- dang 3y agoWe've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously and repeatedly, and ignoring our request to stop. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- hotpotamus 3y ago[flagged]
- StanislavPetrov 3y agoI'm referring to the gain of function research currently being funded by the US government. We funded the gain of function research in Wuhan through the Eco Health Alliance. I don't mean to suggest we have any power to stop other countries from engaging in this dangerous research, but certainly we can stop being a party to it (and likely would have stopped if people knew there was a strong possibility that Covid resulted from a lab leak instead of a "wet market").
- Izkata 3y ago> We funded the gain of function research in Wuhan through the Eco Health Alliance. At least some of this funding happened during a ban. Doing it offshore was the workaround to avoid it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- baja_blast 3y agoWe could stop this research in it's tracks if the US government forced journals to not only refuse to publish dangerous research but also report the researchers to the authorities. Once you remove this incentive the whole demand and motivation for such reckless research collapses.
- ozr 3y agoThis comment is laden with rhetoric, but, to address your point regardless: 'military arms' are widely available. The equipment and knowledge to perform advanced virology work is not. It's much simpler to restrict.
- seattle_spring 3y ago> This comment is laden with rhetoric Can you elaborate on why this was worth pointing out for the parent comment, but not GP?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- neither_color 3y agoBeing unwilling to enforce something is not the same as being incapable of enforcing something, and stopping complex state-level research(especially nuclear) is something the US has been doing in many countries for decades. It's why so few countries have advanced bio/nuclear weapons. Your comparison makes no sense.