A Science in the Shadows
washingtonpost.com
A Science in the Shadows
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#2Re: A Science in the Shadows
#3> What is 'gain of function'?
> The term refers to techniques used to enhance aspects of a pathogen. This is usually done via a combination of gene editing and serial passage of the pathogen between animal hosts.
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#4This is an interesting article. The headline works when you're on the Washington Post site, and you can see the subhead and the image of the SARS-COV-2 virus. But on its own it could mean almost anything. The subhead reads:
Controls on ‘gain of function’ experiments with supercharged pathogens have been undercut despite concerns about lab leaks.
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#5See also "The Moral Challenge of Modern Science" [1]
> The notion that science is morally neutral is also widely held and advanced by scientists. Indeed, many scientists wear their neutrality as a badge of honor, presenting themselves as disinterested servants of truth who merely supply society with facts and tools. They leave it up to others to decide how to use them. “Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be,” Albert Einstein said, “and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.”
> ...
> We must therefore judge modern science not only by its material products, but also, and more so, by its intentions and its influence upon the way humanity has come to think. In both these ways, science is far from morally neutral.
[1]: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-moral-challe... (2006) by Yuval Levin who was at the time "a senior editor of The New Atlantis and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center"
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#6I really think there should be a ban on these gain of function research labs. It’s fine to research current strains and potential medications, but that’s where the line should be drawn.
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#7It's funny seeing this on WaPo front page.
Not long ago mentioning possible artificial source of COVID as a byproduct of gain-of-function research was a "baseless conspiracy theory", and you'd likely be banned for "misinformation" on social media.
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#8Science as currently practiced is an existential risk:
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#9It's funny seeing this on WaPo front page. Not long ago mentioning possible artificial source of COVID as a byproduct of gain-of-function research was a "baseless conspiracy theory", and you'd likely be banned for "misinformation" on social media.
They need to pivot every so often to keep engagement up. If the facts haven't changed, the spin has to change.
Re: A Science in the Shadows
#10Why aren't we discussing Gain-of-function risks more? It seems to be a few orders of magnitude more risky than nuclear disasters such as one in Fukushima and Chernobyl. If Sars-cov-2 was accidentally released from the Wuhan Lab, it has brought the entire world to its knees, trillions of dollars of damage, millions of lives lost and immeasurable impact to the society probably for many years to come. The only reason I am comparing with Nuclear disasters is not to diminish their risks, but to say that it gets disproportional media attention compared to something that until last year I've never heard of, i.e. "Gain of function" research on viruses.
I am almost angry and furious - why is this not discussed with 100x more media stories and scrutiny about what safeguards are in place, how level 5 biolabs are secured and what are the ways it can fail!?
Even if we have proven that it was not released from the Wuhan lab, the risks are still present and absolutely alarming.