I think you're spot on with the description of the Science Game. It's depressing, and I'm considering leaving academia because I can't stand the perverse incentive structures.

I think you're misguided with respect to why gain of function research is done. The idea that we're doing gain of function in order to generate more stuff to study is sort of right, but missing the point. It's not that we've run out of natural stuff to study. We have plenty of natural viruses to study. It's instead that gain of function is a great way to practically test some hypotheses. Imagine you have a theory that property X of a virus enables it to replicate in humans. You can remove property X from an existing virus, but it's even more convincing if you can predict what adding property X to a different virus will do.

Also I would argue that "gain of function research" is too broad a term to be useful for making policy. It's like discussing whether "nuclear physics" is dangerous. Building nuclear weapons is dangerous, making a particle accelerator isn't.

Note sure if that's your choice or Substack's, but either way, it could stand improvement.

(Unfortunately, styling annoyances stand between content and topical response and criticism.)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27412599

Does the Scientific community have enough self-awareness about this to do something about it, and are calls for 'creating new viruses' being actively made and addressed?