They were asked about this recently on This Week in Virology, the most important virology podcast.
They said that no scientist wants to work in a remote location, they want to have a city social life. Which is why these labs are typically located in million+ cities.
They also said that this is safe, because no pandemic to date started from a lab, and that eventually it will be proven that this pandemic is zoonotic too.
They also said that they do not understand why a year and a half in people keep on talking about this baseless conspiracy theory.
> They said that no scientist wants to work in a remote location, they want to have a city social life. Which is why these labs are typically located in million+ cities.
Sounds honest, but selfish given how the most recent pandemic took out the 'city social lives' of hundreds of millions of non-virologists. Hard to understand the cost:benefit there.
> They also said that this is safe, because no pandemic to date started from a lab,
That's got to be the least reassuring safety argument I have ever heard.
>They also said that they do not understand why a year and a half in people keep on talking about this baseless conspiracy theory.
Kills millions directly; massive indirect costs; a year and a half later virologists don't understand that its a problem that we're not certain it didn't come from a lab.
Not an expert, but at these stakes, it makes it sound like there's no adults in charge.
> Kills millions directly; massive indirect costs; a year and a half later virologists don't understand that its a problem that we're not certain it didn't come from a lab.
It has only been a year and a half. It typically takes several years or even decades to trace a new virus in humans back to its origin.
I don't mean we should be sure it couldn't have been a lab escape because we have found the natural origin.
I mean we should be sure it wasn't a lab escape because lab escapes have a prior probability extremely close to zero.
There are lots of smart folk, and intelligence agencies, trying to figure out whether covid is a natural event or a lab leak, and very few analyzes seem to be starting off with "as we all know, because of X, Y, and Z, lab escapes are effectively impossible, and these labs are so well designed that human error never results in accidents, so..."
Surely they don't believe the odds of GOF research producing a much more lethal pandemic than the one we're dealing with are 0%. At the same time, nobody ever showed that GOF research has benefits commensurate with the risks.
It would appear the virologists are not trustworthy.
Technically, they are right. No pandemic ever started from a lab.
But the 2007 British foot and mouth disease outbreak indeed started from a lab. Fortunately this disease can be controlled fairly well as long as you are willing to slaughter anything in wide circles around the case clusters. So, no global pandemic.
It’s also not solely about the lab design. The people and the processes matter. In fact that’s one of the key issues with WIV - they performed GoF with SARS like coronaviruses at a lab with undertrained staff that didn’t understand safety protocols. This was documented by the Washington Post’s Josh Rogin before lab leak theory became a political football, and was known to the US state department a few years ago: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin...
You need people that like to have that kind of fun and don't really care about the risks.
Since they are underpaid in relation to the potential risk, a risk they absolutely know but don't care about, because its so small in their own calculations, you have to give them at least some incentives.
They don't do it just for the scientific fame or out of patriotism anymore.
And they are really bright guys and girls.
At least they were told.
They were selected for it.
Oh, of course they were also selected for following the security guidelines.
They are good boys and girls.
That helps them to hide the dangers from their conscience.
And none of them would ever doubt their own calculations or that of their superiors.
Everything is under control, nothing can happen, everything is safe.
We calculated at least twice.
Until an eye is poked out.
Or a lot of eyes.
And even if something happens, who cares about a few dozen or hundred expendables at most, in the long run?
I already said, it can't be more, because of our safety routines and our extremely bright guys and girls that we need to tickle the Dragons Tail.
Setting the labs up in population centers for other reasons, lab phase two?
Now come on, that is conspiracy theory and Resident Evil Science.
“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.
The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.
> I don't know whether the benefits of GoF research outweighs the risks
It should be obvious now, that all the gain-of-function research done on coronaviruses didn't help at all with this pandemic. Gain-of-function researchers didn't contribute to vaccine development, vaccines were developed by different people.
See also "The Moral Challenge of Modern Science" [1]
> The notion that science is morally neutral is also widely held and advanced by scientists. Indeed, many scientists wear their neutrality as a badge of honor, presenting themselves as disinterested servants of truth who merely supply society with facts and tools. They leave it up to others to decide how to use them. “Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be,” Albert Einstein said, “and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.”
> ...
> We must therefore judge modern science not only by its material products, but also, and more so, by its intentions and its influence upon the way humanity has come to think. In both these ways, science is far from morally neutral.
I really think there should be a ban on these gain of function research labs. It’s fine to research current strains and potential medications, but that’s where the line should be drawn.
You don't need a high level biolab, a negative pressure tent in your garage and a PAPR respirator would probably work fine. Not exactly super safe, though.
This is an interesting article. The headline works when you're on the Washington Post site, and you can see the subhead and the image of the SARS-COV-2 virus. But on its own it could mean almost anything. The subhead reads:
Controls on ‘gain of function’ experiments with supercharged pathogens have been undercut despite concerns about lab leaks.
Why aren't we discussing Gain-of-function risks more? It seems to be a few orders of magnitude more risky than nuclear disasters such as one in Fukushima and Chernobyl. If Sars-cov-2 was accidentally released from the Wuhan Lab, it has brought the entire world to its knees, trillions of dollars of damage, millions of lives lost and immeasurable impact to the society probably for many years to come. The only reason I am comparing with Nuclear disasters is not to diminish their risks, but to say that it gets disproportional media attention compared to something that until last year I've never heard of, i.e. "Gain of function" research on viruses.
I am almost angry and furious - why is this not discussed with 100x more media stories and scrutiny about what safeguards are in place, how level 5 biolabs are secured and what are the ways it can fail!?
Even if we have proven that it was not released from the Wuhan lab, the risks are still present and absolutely alarming.
It's funny seeing this on WaPo front page.
Not long ago mentioning possible artificial source of COVID as a byproduct of gain-of-function research was a "baseless conspiracy theory", and you'd likely be banned for "misinformation" on social media.
There are many potential right reasons. One wrong reason might be "I heard it from a Facebook group founded to spread the word that GMOs were created to make a pliable citizenry".
Isn't that equivalent to an ad hominem fallacy? The truth of a fact or the validity of an argument is independent of the characteristics of the person saying it or the forum in which it was posted.
For example, suppose I claim to have found a fatal flaw deep in the most difficult part of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
If someone says that I'm unlikely to be right because my mother was a hamster and my father smelled of elderberries that would be an ad hominem fallacy.
My mother's species and my father's smell have no bearing on my mathematical claim.
However, if someone says that I'm unlikely to be right because I have not studied any higher math beyond what was covered in classes for my bachelor's degree in math from Caltech and so it is quite unlikely that I have any clue as to what is going on even on the first page of the proof let alone anywhere near the most difficult part (or could even figure out what part is the most difficult part) that would be an ad hominem but not an ad hominem fallacy.
It's not a fallacy because it is questioning whether I have the knowledge to be able to even make a valid argument about details deep in Wiles' proof. That has bearing on the likelihood that my mathematical claims are correct.
> The term refers to techniques used to enhance aspects of a pathogen. This is usually done via a combination of gene editing and serial passage of the pathogen between animal hosts.
One of the frustrating things about discussing gain of function research is the vague and inconsistent definitions in play. Does a discussion participant consider it to be any application of recombinant DNA/RNA to viable viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoans, etc.? Or only when the methods are expected to increase pathogenicity, and if so, by how much? Most everyone probably agrees that "the subset of research that enhances a pathogen to make it likely highly transmissible and virulent in humans (enhanced PPP)" [0] warrants either extreme caution or a straightforward ban, but the lower risk threshold that someone considers to demarcate ok / not ok just doesn't come across at all.
To illustrate that the definition is both broad and variable: "The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new or enhanced activity to that agent. Some scientists use the term broadly to refer to any such modification. However, not all research described as GOF entails the same level of risk. For example, research that involves the modification of bacteria to allow production of human insulin, or the altering of the genetic program of immune cells in CAR-T cell therapy to treat cancer generally would be considered low risk" [0]. It's also possible to modify the agent to make it safer while preserving other aspects that need to be studied. For example, creating a model virus that has no pathogenicity, but depends on the Covid spike protein for replication so it can be used to study receptor binding and vaccine evasion safely.
I wish we'd collectively chosen a clearer term, like "engineered potentially pandemic pathogenicity", that more closely matches our collective Covid-inspired concerns. Arguments about "gain of function" gives the dangerous stuff cover by mixing it together with innocuous experiments. Lack of clarity makes it easier to synthesize controversy, accidentally or intentionally, by mixing together statements about very different kinds of gain of function work. The Post says they identified 18 projects that "appeared to include gain-of-function experiments"—they should say exactly what risks those projects pose instead of leaving us with merely a vague and sinister implication.
