> Shi’s goal was to turn the bat CoVs into huACE2-binding molecules, that is, to design promoters of human infection.
what is the scientific use of creating viruses that are harmful to mankind?
what is the scientific use of creating viruses that are harmful to mankind?
> The Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have systematically thwarted efforts by the White House, the Congress, scientists, and science policy specialists to regulate GoF research of concern and even to require risk-benefit review for projects involving GoF research of concern.
> In 2014, the Obama White House implemented a “Pause” in federal funding for GoF research of concern. However, the document announcing the Pause stated in a footnote that: “An exception from pause may be obtained if head of funding agency determines research is urgently necessary to protect public health or national security”. Unfortunately, the NIAID Director and the NIH Director exploited this loophole to issue exemptions to projects subject to the Pause –preposterously asserting the exempted research was “urgently necessary to protect public health or national security”– thereby nullifying the Pause.
> In 2017, the Trump Administration announced a Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (P3CO) Framework that implemented a requirement for risk-benefit review of GoF research of concern. However, the P3CO Framework relies on the funding agency to flag and forward proposals for risk-benefit review. Unfortunately, the NIAID Director and the NIH Director have declined to flag and forward proposals for risk-benefit review, thereby nullifying the P3CO Framework.
I am not really suggesting the real driver of GoF of concern is military contracts, except maybe when looking at public funding sources.
> Meticulous investigation of U.S. government databases reveals that Pentagon funding for the EcoHealth Alliance from 2013 to 2020, including contracts, grants and subcontracts, was just under $39 million. Most, $34.6 million, was from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is a branch of the DOD which states it is tasked to “counter and deter weapons of mass destruction and improvised threat networks.”
> Most of the remaining money to EHA was from USAID (State Dept.), comprising at least $64,700,000 (1). These two sources thus total over $103 million.
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/peter-daszaks-ec...
I do think our back-and-forth can be useful, at least I learned something and removed some uncertainties.
The issue is that it's unlikely that any knowledge gained from the GoF research meaningfully accelerates the delivery of treatments or a vaccine, which is the hypothetical benefit that makes up for the increased risk of escape.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fears-grow-over-l...
More unofficial and non-scientific reasons that may not necessarily be in play are weapons research, and fetishizing of harmful viruses by sociopathic scientists working alongside other scientists.
Biological weapons -although an option is a pretty poor option because one, it’s not very lethal, but it can be economically effective.
Josh Rogin, who wrote a book that covers the arc of events around COVID and the work at the Wuhan lab, says the opposite. He says the people doing GoF research generally consider counteracting the viruses to be not their department.
However, he's more of an Asia expert, not a lab expert, so he could be wrong about this. That's why I wonder if your source is the same source I had originally when I had the same belief.. my source at the time was simply my own guess based on common sense, but according to Josh that's not how the research is set up.
Informally: Military biowarfare defense and offense.
Why are scientists doing this? Military and government funding galore. If you have the equipment and laboratory, you can publish papers forever. It is easier to do GoF, than to actually predict spillover events.
The most prominent critic of gain-of-function research, going so far as to call it gravely irresponsible, is the molecular biologist Dr. Richard H. Ebright.
https://www.independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/an-inter...
History will remember.
Either way, these are only getting easier to make, and the response made it worth incalculably more.