NIH restarts bat virus grant
science.org
NIH restarts bat virus grant
1–10 of 208 posts
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#2Obligatory: What could possibly go wrong?
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#3Obligatory: What could possibly go wrong?
Better to study and be prepared, than to stick our head in the sand and pretend emerging infectious disease aren't a recurrent factor in our lives.
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#4Obligatory: What could possibly go wrong?
Better to study and be prepared, than to stick our head in the sand and pretend emerging infectious disease aren't a recurrent factor in our lives.
I mean, modifying a bat virus to be more infectious to human and then doing so in a lab that only requires masks not full body suits. How many millions died, how many suffered, what did we lose?
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that is a terrible idea. “Sticking our head in the sand” appears to not fit this use case very well
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#5Obligatory: What could possibly go wrong?
Better to study and be prepared, than to stick our head in the sand and pretend emerging infectious disease aren't a recurrent factor in our lives.
That's not really the case here. Gain of function research can not be justified using this argument.
There are so many potential mutations that putting specific evolutionary pressure on a virus in order to "prevent" only those specific effects has such low efficacy considering the size of the problem space.
GOF research has provided very little in terms of benefits, and many argue it's simply been a way to disguise bioweapons research after the Geneva convention.
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#6Here we go again! As if one pandemic wasn't enough! Ridiculous!
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to study and be prepared, than to stick our head in the sand and pretend emerging infectious disease aren't a recurrent factor in our lives.
That's not really the case here. Gain of function research can not be justified using this argument. There are so many potential mutations that putting specific evolutionary pressure on a virus in order to "prevent" only those specific effects has such low efficacy considering the size of the problem space. GOF research has provided very little in terms of benefits, and many argue it's simply been a way to disguise b…
(Agree with you, but - sorry - as a practitioner in the law of armed conflict, I have to point out that the Biological Weapons Convention didn't take effect until more than a quarter century after the Geneva Conventions of 1949.)
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#8Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better to study and be prepared, than to stick our head in the sand and pretend emerging infectious disease aren't a recurrent factor in our lives.
That's not really the case here. Gain of function research can not be justified using this argument. There are so many potential mutations that putting specific evolutionary pressure on a virus in order to "prevent" only those specific effects has such low efficacy considering the size of the problem space. GOF research has provided very little in terms of benefits, and many argue it's simply been a way to disguise b…
The NIH, the scientists doing the research, and most other experts in the field disagree. Partisan politicians are the ones yelling about how dangerous it is. I think I'll listen to the experts.
Re: NIH restarts bat virus grant
#10Obligatory: What could possibly go wrong?
Better to study and be prepared, than to stick our head in the sand and pretend emerging infectious disease aren't a recurrent factor in our lives.
Even if that’s the case, which could be possible, it would be nice to have some accountability for the accident that led to the covid pandemic and lockdowns, and a transparent accounting of why even after all that, the risk from not doing this research is greater than that of restarting it