> But we’ll never be able to reassure terrified, scientifically under-informed people to their satisfaction, particularly when they’ve already decided that GoF

> But we’ll never be able to reassure terrified, scientifically under-informed people to their satisfaction, particularly when they’ve already decided that GoF is somewhat scary and maybe even partisan. 1. You don't have to be "scientifically under-informed" to find C concerning Listen, I don't consider myself an under-informed person. I have a PhD in computer science, I regularly watch science videos on YouTube, I click on interesting things (like this article) that show up on Hacker News. But until this thread, I had never heard that the sort of thing described at the top-level comment even went on, much less was I familiar with the containment protocols. (How could I not, if I they're taught in Biology 101? I'm pretty sure I didn't take Biology 101; only Physics and Chemistry.) My starting assumption coming into this thread was that the protocols described here probably are perfectly safe; and that even for more dangerous GoF research, informed people have done a cost-benefits analysis, and determined that the lives potentially saved are worth the lives potentially risked. Points A and B of the person I responded to reassured me. But point C I personally find concerning. In computer science, only an absolute fool would ever say, "This system has absolutely no security vulnerabilities". On the contrary, you generally have to live with the fact that there almost certainly are security vulnerabilities in any system you run, and hope that they're found by the good guys before they're exploited by the bad guys; as well as structuring your system to be able to minimize the potential lost caused if not. Now sure, maybe I'd have a different attitude if I'd taken Biology 101. But that doesn't change the fact that C, as stated, actually weakened the article towards someone like me, who is generally prone to trust the scientific establishment. How much more would it weaken the argument to someone with a more skeptical, anti-science stance? 2. In a democracy, the opinion of the "scientifically under-informed" matters I realize it's frustrating to have to explain this to the "scientifically under-informed", many of whom are being misled by bad actors trying to profit by stoking fear. But that's the reality of the world we live in. It's not enough to know the right answer; you must convince other people of the right answer. And I won't even say "unfortunately", because this is a fundamental feature of democracy. Like checks and balances or trial by jury, having to convince non-experts prevents the system from going wrong.