"Gain-of-function" doesn't refer to adding literally any function to a virus, it refers to making it more virulent or transmissible -- that's why lots of people

"Gain-of-function" doesn't refer to adding literally any function to a virus, it refers to making it more virulent or transmissible -- that's why lots of people are so against it, because the cost-benefit ratio seems so obviously lopsided. Adding unrelated functions to viruses and using them as vectors isn't included in that, both in that it has lots more uses (some vaccines are made this way, for instance) and much lower downside risk (viruses used as vectors are often rendered unable to replicate, so the risk of them spreading at all is small). > Wouldn't that qualify as GoF research? And if so, after millions dead and trillions lost, how prudent is it to conduct this kind of research? While this isn't the main point, I feel like I should point out that (if I'm understanding you correctly) there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning here. Whether or not it's a good idea to conduct this particular research is a matter of the facts of this particular case. How you categorize it doesn't change that. Learning what is or is not considered "gain of function" should have zero effect on your opinion here! Here's a good essay on this topic: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TyQSMmoJpRG3HBv5S/cleaning-up-the-worst-argument-essay https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TyQSMmoJpRG3HBv5S/cleaning-u...