I truthfully do not see the value (vs risk) in this kind of research. Humanity is too careless to do this kind of thing safely. Figure out better ways to model this in software instead, IM (uninformed) O.
A general defense is that nature is a far better incubator and gain-of-function laboratory that we could ever hope to be. A few billion birds have caught bird flu in the past decade, so we're talking about trillions and trillions of viruses constantly undergoing mutation in close proximity with farm mammals and humans all over the world... If we know the genetics of what turns a bird flu into one transmissible to humans, it's probably better to "get in front of it" rather than just awaiting that mutation to happen somewhere in nature for the first time.
Trillions and trillions of mutations and still the most dangerous H5N1 viruses were created a decade ago by Fouchier and Kawaoka. And how did that help us prepare for the inevitable natural evolution of the same virus?
Sure, but that's only if you restrict it to H5N1 instead of looking at the history of Influenza A and things like the Spanish Flu, which was the most deadly disease in human history and derived from a mutated bird flu.
Even still, H5N1 has repeatedly infected humans in the wild... the most famous case in Hong Kong infecting 18 people and killing 6 of those. So you can make the case that GoF is irresponsible given the stakes, but it seems important to acknowledge that you're basically just hoping these horrific viruses don't mutate as we predict them to.
That would be the case if GoF research was necessary to defend against these viruses, but that’s not the case. AFAIK, GoF research played no part in the development of vaccines and treatments for Covid.
Sure, but it took over a year, trillions of dollars of economic disruption and millions of lives to develop the vaccines — its all balance of probabilities and costs.
Some of the proposed research that was GoF adjacent (that was never actually performed) was to develop pseudo viruses more similar to hACE strains that would evoke an immune response in horseshoe bats, effectively vaccinating them. Would the small, but certain, risk of an accident from that research been worth it if it could’ve averted the last 3 years and every future sarbecovirus pandemic?
It still might be the case that we shouldn’t risk GoF - but the simplistic “hurr durr, greedy virologists just want their grant money and don’t understand the risk” takes are childishly simplistic. There is nobody on earth more attuned to the risk of pandemics than the people doing this research, it’s why they’re doing the research.
That’s a terrible defence. Evolution isn’t directed. Gain of function research is like trying to breed animals for specific features, it probably reduces the disease’s overall fitness but it sure could increase its fitness in humans because that’s what they’re breeding for.
We’ve had dozens of zoonotic jumps with bird flu that we know about, and surely thousands that we don’t know about. The mere proximity of humans and birds (and birds and other mammals) means that you don’t need directed evolution. Random mutation + recombination with other strains of influenza already present in humans and animals means that a single “winning” combination will inevitably spillover again. And has trillions of opportunities to do so.
When virologists talk about the inevitability of pandemics, this is the exact mechanism that worries them.
Not doing the GoF work is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll avoid these strains. I’m not convinced it’s worth the energy either, but playing ostrich isn’t a viable alternative.
There's also the chance being more informed would lead to the same basic conclusion, and there's the chance that most informed people actually share his opinion (unbeknownst to you).
There's a chance the most informed people's salary depends on not understanding this. It takes a special kind of person to proclaim their profession is a danger to humanity and needs to be curtailed.
I once heard an ad sponsored by the American Podiatric Medical Association that listed the benefits of going to your podiatrist, and concluded with a recommendation that everyone should get a podiatric examination once per year, just to maintain foot health.
I'm sure that seemed intensely reasonable to all the heavily informed podiatrists that were involved.
As long as china and other countries refuse to operate sanitary food chains, the risk they represent will be 1000s of times higher than a high security lab. That is why so many zoonotic diseases come from such places and so few from the rest of the world.
If you don't understand the reasons for why things are done a certain way and just assume that Chinese or whoever prefer to keep unsanitary conditions, then you won't solve the problem. Wet markets reduce the incidence of food poisoning by minimizing the time raw meat is kept at room temperature. If refrigeration isn't readily available, this is probably the best solution. You can find wet markets throughout the world, it's not just limited top China and Asia.
But I didn't say people "preferred" to be unsanitary, and it doesn't actually matter why things are done one way or another.
COVID-19 is believed to have originated in a live-animal market in Wuhan. I would argue (and forgive me if this is racist) that a market where some vendor sells diseased animals as food that will kill 7 million people (and shut down the world for almost two years) qualifies as "unsanitary."
Wet markets have a pretty good reason for existing. If you don't have a reliable cold chain and aren't sure about refrigeration, then keeping animals alive as long as possible and then butchering them just before you need to use the meat keeps the chances of food poisoning low.
It's unlikely for years, or decades. The entire concept has been entirely and deliberately conflated with Trumpism, and any suggestion of a lab origin is met with a combination of outrage, gaslighting and deflection.
Yes, somehow it is considered racist and sinophobic to ask if the coronavirus outbreak that originated in Wuhan, might possibly be related to the coronavirus research center in Wuhan.
>it is considered racist and sinophobic to ask if the coronavirus outbreak that originated in Wuhan, might possibly be related to the coronavirus research center in Wuhan.
These (name-calling) are the refuge of a coward who won't consider that they could be wrong because that possibility would call into question other parts of their tightly held beliefs.
Thanks for Jon Stewart, I miss that guy and his humorous way of presenting stories to his audience.
>any suggestion of a lab origin is met with a combination of outrage, gaslighting and deflection.
And downvotes. LOL.
The paper trail for Covid-19 and H5N1 bird flu show common threads that can't be ignored until they can be conclusively demonstrated to be wrong.
We are not there today. We won't ever get there either if people are against entertaining that option (lab leak) long enough to be able to locate the facts that will conclusively exclude it.
Extinction is hyperbole. Even a lack of immunity to smallpox did not result in native Americans being wiped out by smallpox, although it did drastically lower their numbers.
> Weird title, needs a comma after "risky", but I guess HN removes them while sanitizing
It would be grammatically incorrect in English to put a single comma there. A correct alternative would be to put a comma there and also change "that" to ", which" - ie, reading, "Controversial experiments, which could make bird flu more risky, to resume". The entire relative clause needs to be sandwiched with commas; putting a single one at the end is incorrect.
That said, the title as it stands is grammatically correct, although it is potentially ambiguous in meaning.
Other languages have different rules about comma usage, but this is how it works in English.
What even is the most generous, steelman argument of how this could help humanity prepare for a pandemic? The article just glossed over that part.
Because after Covid it sure seems like whatever it is, there are a lot of much lower hanging fruit as far as detection, early testing, contact tracing infrastructure, understanding what air is, etc that would do a lot more to prepare for the next pandemic.
We transitioned from doing live nuclear warhead tests to testing using computer simulations. We should do the same with viruses. I'm not sure if we can simulate such complex molecules yet.
46 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058281
Even still, H5N1 has repeatedly infected humans in the wild... the most famous case in Hong Kong infecting 18 people and killing 6 of those. So you can make the case that GoF is irresponsible given the stakes, but it seems important to acknowledge that you're basically just hoping these horrific viruses don't mutate as we predict them to.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11938498/
Some of the proposed research that was GoF adjacent (that was never actually performed) was to develop pseudo viruses more similar to hACE strains that would evoke an immune response in horseshoe bats, effectively vaccinating them. Would the small, but certain, risk of an accident from that research been worth it if it could’ve averted the last 3 years and every future sarbecovirus pandemic?
It still might be the case that we shouldn’t risk GoF - but the simplistic “hurr durr, greedy virologists just want their grant money and don’t understand the risk” takes are childishly simplistic. There is nobody on earth more attuned to the risk of pandemics than the people doing this research, it’s why they’re doing the research.
When virologists talk about the inevitability of pandemics, this is the exact mechanism that worries them.
Not doing the GoF work is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll avoid these strains. I’m not convinced it’s worth the energy either, but playing ostrich isn’t a viable alternative.
I'm sure that seemed intensely reasonable to all the heavily informed podiatrists that were involved.
Don't "strain out a fly and swallow a camel"...
Isn't the leading theory that COVID-19 originated/spread from Wuhan's seafood market (with poor sanitation standards)?
COVID-19 is believed to have originated in a live-animal market in Wuhan. I would argue (and forgive me if this is racist) that a market where some vendor sells diseased animals as food that will kill 7 million people (and shut down the world for almost two years) qualifies as "unsanitary."
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6547/dang...
Also I went to a shocking wet market the other weekend in Seattle. Raw fish on display, raw meat galore in coolers, produce, etc.
Jon Stewart says it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8
These (name-calling) are the refuge of a coward who won't consider that they could be wrong because that possibility would call into question other parts of their tightly held beliefs.
Thanks for Jon Stewart, I miss that guy and his humorous way of presenting stories to his audience.
And downvotes. LOL.
The paper trail for Covid-19 and H5N1 bird flu show common threads that can't be ignored until they can be conclusively demonstrated to be wrong.
We are not there today. We won't ever get there either if people are against entertaining that option (lab leak) long enough to be able to locate the facts that will conclusively exclude it.
How many times would you be comfortable rolling a million-sided die for humanity's extinction?
It would be grammatically incorrect in English to put a single comma there. A correct alternative would be to put a comma there and also change "that" to ", which" - ie, reading, "Controversial experiments, which could make bird flu more risky, to resume". The entire relative clause needs to be sandwiched with commas; putting a single one at the end is incorrect.
That said, the title as it stands is grammatically correct, although it is potentially ambiguous in meaning.
Other languages have different rules about comma usage, but this is how it works in English.
Because after Covid it sure seems like whatever it is, there are a lot of much lower hanging fruit as far as detection, early testing, contact tracing infrastructure, understanding what air is, etc that would do a lot more to prepare for the next pandemic.