Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have no interest in conspiracy theories.
I am curious what purpose gain of function research serves, beyond scientific curiosity (which is somewhat legitimate) and creating bio-weapons (illegitimate).
What possible positive outcomes are there?
Maybe more potent viruses that can quickly kill bacteria that are infecting humans?
I did not study biology beyond half of high school, preferring the soothing cold touch of machines instead. So please explain at my level.
No. of Recommendations: 12
What possible positive outcomes are there?
I think one main reasoning goes like this: basic research about your enemy is often time very well spent.
There are quite a few pathogens out there that would be extremely bad if they figured out just one or two more tricks.
How to go airborne, for example, or how to attach to human cells. Or related things, like how and when certain families of viruses mix and combine.
Learning how those mutation mechanisms work and combine could help in a lot of ways, for example determining which "not quite there yet" diseases are the biggest risk and might warrant preventative action.
Much of the research is valid, and I believe it can be done safely, given the right care.
That care is not always taken, alas.
It is sadly true that lab leaks are not exactly unheard of, ignoring any discussion of Covid19.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 3
knight, thanks to lack of knowledge I can't give you an the answer a biologist/virologist might give you. But a general one: When it comes to scientific studies, always look who funds them. When it comes to articles by scientists, always look at the organisations who funded the writer's work, what his connections are, before you accept what he writes about his or other's research as his real, scientific and unbiased opinion. This is quite obvious in the medical/pharmaceutical field, but does apply not only there. Of course scientists doing research in gain of function research claim all kinds of potential positive effects. They need funding!
Jim's answer is nice and positive - and surprisingly naïve (Maybe he simply is a too nice guy to see the dark sides - contrary to me :)
It helps to get some background about how gain of function research is related to the famous "Cleavage site" of SARS-CoV-2 and that the EcoHealth Alliance wrote a grant proposal for such research to DARPA, the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (that was denied):
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-re...Regarding transparency it helps to know how dubious that the role of Anthony Fauci (and a whole group of world-famous virologists like Germany's own Christian Drosten) was:
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-...If you dismiss "The Intercept" as source, what about "The Spectator", the oldest still existing English magazine?
https://thespectator.com/topic/funding-gain-functi...Who eg. says this (bold highlighting by me):
After 2001, virus research surged: In 1997 the government's biosecurity budget was $137 million; by 2004 it had grown more than 3,000 percent, with the federal government spending $14.5 billion in the period.Creating a very clear connection between 9/11 and government funding for virus research.
So it's not about
"There are quite a few pathogens out there that would be extremely bad if they figured out just one or two more tricks."Not about the viruses figuring out those tricks, but about us humans
teaching them those tricks, either for purposes of attack or to learn how to defend against such attacks --- which, with the genie out of the bottle, of course will come. As always: What's possible to do will be done.
No. of Recommendations: 0
''Jim's answer is nice and positive - and surprisingly naïve (Maybe he simply is a too nice guy to see the dark sides - contrary to me :) '' If you aren't already reading Doc Prasad, on Substack and Twitter, you should.
No. of Recommendations: 17
Jim's answer is nice and positive - and surprisingly naïve (Maybe he simply is a too nice guy to see the dark sides - contrary to me :)
Bear in mind I was attempting the answer the very specific question posed: "What possible positive outcomes are there?"
The negative uses and outcomes are pretty obvious, I should think.
I do believe it's a valid topic for positive research.
In effect, every pandemic starts with some bug gaining function, whether in the wild or by some bad actor.
It's probably good for good guys to learn a whole lot about that subject.
...Creating a very clear connection between 9/11 and government funding for virus research...
Hmmm, that seems to resemble the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" trap.
The ability for bad actors to do bad things with genetic engineering has increased a lot in recent years, so it's unsurprising that the funding has increased a lot.
As a proxy for the barriers to entry, check out the historical cost of sequencing a genome over time.
I don't think it's necessary to look for other more specious correlations. Sometimes a gene-edited cigar is just a cigar.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 9
Why would scientists be genuinely interested in gain of function research?
There is a big strategic priority in the US and other countries around preparedness for biothreats. Particularly from parties that are not a part of any well regulated entity or groups that follow / adhere to international agreements. Biothreats often include taking clinical pathogens and modifying them to enhance a biological feature (e.g., resistance to certain treatments/drugs, ability to increase spread capability, increase virulence).
If you were charged with being the front line defense mechanism to deal with biothreats, you might want your scientists figuring how mechanisms that could weaponize something that has already shown virulence (e.g., Ebola) might be countered? Is there a vaccine that would work, are there counterpathogens that could counteract the virulent strains, etc? Its difficult to have preparedness and to have fast response capability if your scientists haven't studied those mechanisms. Because its very hard to figure it out just by capturing those biothreats after the fact. So you have to have a sense of what things are possible, which things are harder and easier to execute, and how long lasting and impactful particular designs might be.
Its dangerous because of course these things can become weapons and dangerous. But if you consider yourself the "good guy", which of course everyone does in their own mind, it seems irresponsible not to work on them in well controlled contexts (e.g., BSL Level 4 labs).
No. of Recommendations: 0
"work on them in well controlled contexts (e.g., BSL Level 4 labs)"...on remote Antarctica, please!
No. of Recommendations: 5
Jim's answer is nice and positive - and surprisingly naïve
One of the last terms anyone should use to describe Jim is "naive". The term I would use to describe that opinion is highly "mistaken".
No. of Recommendations: 23
Jim's answer is nice and positive - and surprisingly naïve
======
One of the last terms anyone should use to describe Jim is "naive". The term I would use to describe that opinion is highly "mistaken".
Perhaps naïve has a less pejorative connotation in German. Naiv - natürlich, unbefangen, treuherzig, arglos - all seem fairly harmless (natural, impartial, trusting, guileless...) In English, it has more of a sense of stupidly oblivious to an obvious problem.
I think it would be better to describe Jim's response as one which acknowledges that we don't know everything about Gates and his associations, including the serious accusations of sexual improprieties, but that the accusations concern behaviour that is completely unproven and, for the most par, none of our business anyways. What we DO know a lot about is the many positive contributions that Gates has made to the world through his philanthropy, and the millions of lives he has positively influenced by it. His resignation from Berkshire's board, the only part of this that is really related to this board, could be understood as an implicit acknowledgement of the seriousness of the accusations against him, yes, that is one possibility, but it could just as well be Gates honourably shielding Berkshire from criticism (like the criticism we have seen on this board), even if that criticism is unjustified.
gat
Calling this naive presumes that we know the truth of what has happened. I say even if I have no great love for a hypocrite like Gates who tells us to live modest lives that protect the environment, while building a 66,000 square feet mansion, owning a half billion dollar yacht, and jetting around the world to meet his fellow billionaires and decide how the rest of us should behave. But since we don't know much about his personal life, it would be much better to just give him the presumption of innocence, as we would to anyone else, and get on with our own lives where there are undoubtedly enough problems to keep us busy, and with much better chances of making improvements.
Regards, DTB
No. of Recommendations: 28
I have no great love for a hypocrite like Gates who tells us to live modest lives that protect the environment, while building a 66,000 square feet mansion,
owning a half billion dollar yacht, and jetting around the world to meet his fellow billionaires and decide how the rest of us should behave.
I have no direct comment on that view, but it's interesting to note that Mr Gates flew economy almost exclusively till 10 years after he became a billionaire.
That's far more restraint than I can muster, at a very much more modest level of prosperity!
I shared an elevator with him once, both of us just arriving at a conference. He was schlepping his own bags, and looked exhausted.
As a further tangential note, it's interesting to note that it's very expensive to be famous these days.
To remain safe (and sane) you need a level of security and isolation that doesn't come cheaply.
I am very very happy to be obscure.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 16
I think it would be better to describe Jim's response as one which acknowledges that we don't know everything about Gates ............ Calling this naive presumes ....
DTB, you mix up two different posts. I did not use the word "naïve" in the context of what Jim wrote about Bill Gates. It was about "Gain of function" research.
Perhaps naïve has a less pejorative connotation in German. Naiv - natürlich, unbefangen, treuherzig, arglos - all seem fairly harmless (natural, impartial, trusting, guileless...) In English, it has more of a sense of stupidly oblivious to an obvious problem.
DTB, thank you for clarifying! Your German apparently is better than my English. You are absolutely correct. In German (and French too, I think?) "naïve" is used when you with sympathy smile at a child and stroke his head who we say "naiv" thinks it just have to open it's mouth and bananas or ice-cream will be falling in it from the sky (Maybe "innocent" is the English equivalent for how we use "naiv").
There are several language traps like that for a German trying to speak English. For years I said "That's irritating" or "I am irritated" when an American friend said something I did not understand. She always was baffled: "Why are you irritated?" and that reply always baffled me --- until we some day found out that when I said "irritated" I meant "confused", as the German "irritiert" means exactly that, without any negative emotional connotation like the English "irritated".
So guys, please give us non-native English speakers a bit of leniency. As we are all friends here, any offense felt might simply be based on a misunderstanding.
No. of Recommendations: 1
P. S. : And regarding Bill Gates: I have the highest respect for him and what he does for humankind.
(A few years ago I sent him a letter, asking whether he could use my skills for his foundation.)
No. of Recommendations: 3
My understanding of gain of function is research is that by making the virus stronger, you can figure out ways to treat it. Nothing sinister there.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hear hear!
Years ago I used to work in a n engineering-heavy company with almost all non-native English speakers (including me). The Tech Pubs lady (herself a non- native speaker) had created a great write-up on common traps to avoid.
For me, where to put the word "only" in a sentence is always a bit of a head-scratcher. And I have a tendency to drop the definite and indefinite articles (which don't exist in my first or second languages, and seem redundant with singular/plural forms plus whether the referred-to object is unique in some sense).
On top of that, Americans are far less bothered with correct grammar - an admirable trait according to the all-knowing Mr Nassim Taleb. The pedants only care 😀
