It doesn't help solve the crisis and it doesn't change attitudes toward gain-of-function research. The pandemic itself, regardless of origin, highlighted the possible consequences. Even without a connection to research - and even more so with the mere possibility - it heightened concern about lab safety, and made the risk/reward calculations around GoF research even less favorable than they already had been. The community of people capable of performing or funding such research was already on top of it - again, regardless of origin. Public finger-pointing is only likely to rile up nationalist sentiments which would interfere with establishing better procedures and protocols governing virological research.
The lawyers and diplomats have some work to do, but (especially in light of today's news) I suggest that the rest of us including the media have some higher priorities for how to spend our time/energy.
> 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.
> I think we should care A LOT MORE about our [apparent total lack of] ability to quickly deploy effective public health responses to new infectious diseases (regardless of their source).
Then we shouldn't be doing _gain of function_ research on the types of viruses that can cause these outbreaks.
> Maybe it was an accident at a sloppy lab, ok, so labs on the other side of the planet in sovereign countries we do not control might make mistakes. We should get better at responding fast to save lives.
What's the cost-benefit analysis for running the lab in the first place? Was any of it's research used in producing the vaccine? If it's all about saving lives, can't we be mad at both the lacking response and the laboratory at the same time?
> I don't care where it came from [...] We should get better at responding fast and saving lives (my opinion).
Those two goals seem in conflict with each other. Good offense is something we should aspire too.. but that doesn't mean we should entirely ignore defense as well.
> Well we spent over a decade and millions of dollars studying SARS coronaviruses and yet none of that work was of any help in fighting the pandemic.
Wow. Just wow.
It's statements like this that make me think we should indeed halt all virology research, and really all medical research and development entirely. We deserve what we get.
>It would also likely result in a backlash against interest in GOF research in general.
If general GOF research caused this pandemic, then maybe there should be a backlash against it. Lot's of science doesn't happen because it's too dangerous to human lives, even if the theoretical benefits outweigh the costs.
Yes, this was very explicitly stated. And this is nowhere near the first call to do so (a lot of very respected scientists were calling for a stop to GoF research before the pandemic).
Whatever claims GoF research had beforehand of helping w/ pandemic preparedness have evaporated, because none of the successful responses to the pandemic (vaccines, antivirals) have relied on GoF research whatsoever. It appears to a high risk with no reward.
>what would we do differently if it were a lab leak? Increase biocontainment protocols?
Ban gain of function research.
There are many virologists who make compelling arguments that the hypothetical benefits of the research (which have yet to materialize) pale in comparison to the risks.
Every day that goes by that GoF research fails to materialize any of its hypothetical benefits makes the case against it ever stronger.
> Perhaps begin by entertaining ideas as possible until proven otherwise
You're assuming I didn't already do that. I'm just objecting to the exhortation to "do your own research". I'm not going to do that, because we live in a modern society with labor specialization.
> No scientists ever provided conclusive proof the virus didn’t originate in a lab.
Where the virus originated from is nice to know for later. But I really care about getting my life back right now. The scientists and experts can debate all the evidence, consider all the options, and report back their findings. "Doing my research" isn't going to help anyone.
> all labs researching viruses do research on dangerous viruses
There should be more attention on this. We're busy worrying about AI that can troll at a college level, while scientists are still busy making frankenviruses after a pandemic plausibly caused by a lab leak.
> it is irrelevant outside of highlighting a need for additional safety protocols.
It calls into question the entire premise of this sort of research. If the risk of accidental release in the course of this research is greater than the risk of a natural pandemic, then the research should be discontinued. Of course anybody who is involved in this sort of research has a strong personal incentive to discourage such lines of thought, since it could end their careers.
> Prominent, respected virologists have been questioning gain of function research for a while
The quotation you cite from Lipitsch doesn't validate your comment.
He wasn't "questioning gain of function research". He was calling for greater oversight over gain of function research and for more initiatives to try to limit the damage potential of zoonotic spillover.
If anything, Lipitsch was upholding the value of gain of function research, because he believes scientists should do everything possible to try to prevent pandemics.
> the last thing we need is science blamed for this virus.
I think this is the primary reason so many virologists are against the lab-leak idea. It's not because they think it's unlikely, but because if people were aware of how dangerous this research was the funding would dry up and it might even get banned.
>The truth is that there is nothing particularly surprising about the way this virus evolved.
I beg to differ. How many pandemic causing viruses have their ground zero right outside an instition that for the last decade has been cranking out study after study derived from GoF research? A place that also was receiving information from American university researchers on how to develop chimeric mutations? Which just happened to share genetic material with strains known to have been researched for bioweapon applications? All at the same time as an uptick in censorship of academic papers.
There's coincidence, and then there's coincidence. I don't think anyone was out to make the darn thing, or intentionally release it. When I see a bunch of virology going on, and a pandemic starts up next door, I'm not looking 1000 miles away for the source.
By not doing bioweapons or gain-of-function research? Wasn't the whole point of that research to prevent these sorts of pandemics? Even if COVID-19 wasn't from a lab leak...were those experiments actually helpful in being able to combat the pandemic? The answer seems to be no.
> Given that Covid was released upon the world likely due to a lab accident
This is entirely without evidence.
> This in itself has proven to be a source of denial by the very virus experts (like Fauci) that do not want their area of science to be restricted.
Even if you ignore Covid19 -- epidemiologists and virologists have been screaming for years that pandemics are hugely problematic and will become increasingly likely as we densify and further intrude into the urban-wilderness interface. We got extremely lucky that SARS1 wasn't as lethal or infectious as Covid-19. If the work virologists do (even the 'riskiest' work) could lead to new universal coronavirus vaccines or better treatments, it's a much more complicated question on whether to continue the work than ignorant opinions insist.
> Given the university’s response, this is clearly an institutional problem. The United States of America should not award them more grant money to study viruses in any capacity.
I suspect that this could have happened at any institution. Bureaucracy is the same everywhere. There are always weak links, misjudgments, selfishness, ass-covering. IMO this is clearly a human problem.
There's not a better institution. Nobody can be trusted with this dangerous research.
> I mean, collectively as humans we stand to benefit from knowing what happened so we can make more informed cost benefit decisions in the future about conducting risky research (if that's what happened).
You're not wrong, but I think what you're missing is that the risky research was funded (in part) by the us federal government, and no one voted for that in the first place. So even if we were all enlightened, what could we change? So many people still don't even know that there was a lab studying coronaviruses in wuhan.
> It's unlikely that the people investigating will be the same ones developing new drugs or treatments for covid.
Maybe not, but maybe they should instead be investigating how policy failed us so catastrophically around the world after it escaped its original area.
When the world obsesses over its origin, it seems to be blatant deflection over failures at home.
It doesn't help solve the crisis and it doesn't change attitudes toward gain-of-function research. The pandemic itself, regardless of origin, highlighted the possible consequences. Even without a connection to research - and even more so with the mere possibility - it heightened concern about lab safety, and made the risk/reward calculations around GoF research even less favorable than they already had been. The community of people capable of performing or funding such research was already on top of it - again, regardless of origin. Public finger-pointing is only likely to rile up nationalist sentiments which would interfere with establishing better procedures and protocols governing virological research.
The lawyers and diplomats have some work to do, but (especially in light of today's news) I suggest that the rest of us including the media have some higher priorities for how to spend our time/energy.
reply