Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#21

Post by khazhoux »

bboygravity wrote: post #10
candiddevmike wrote: post #4

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.

There's a chance that being more informed might help form a different opinion more aligned with most informed people.

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).

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#23

Post by prewett »

gensym wrote: post #12

In other news: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00283-y How many times would you be comfortable rolling a million-sided die for humanity's extinction?

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.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#24

Post by ern »

doodlebugging wrote: post #7

[flagged]

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.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#25

Post by khazhoux »

ern wrote: post #24
doodlebugging wrote: post #7

[flagged]

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.

Jon Stewart says it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#26

Post by giraffe_lady »

LatteLazy wrote: post #11
candiddevmike wrote: post #4

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.

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. Don't "strain out a fly and swallow a camel"...

[flagged]

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#27

Post by chimeracoder »

snshn wrote: post #18

Weird title, needs a comma after "risky", but I guess HN removes them while sanitizing

> 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.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#28

Post by taneq »

bboygravity wrote: post #10
candiddevmike wrote: post #4

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.

There's a chance that being more informed might help form a different opinion more aligned with most informed people.

There’s also a chance that most informed people do this kind of research at work, and would like to keep their jobs.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#29

Post by taneq »

mikeyouse wrote: post #9
candiddevmike wrote: post #4

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 hum…

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.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#30

Post by mikeyouse »

taneq wrote: post #29
mikeyouse wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hum…

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.

Post reply on HN