I don't recall seeing this two years ago. The author's interpretation ation of gain of function is straightforward and fairly easy to understand.
It is giving an organism a new property or enhancing an existing one. This is done a couple ways. One broad, general way appears to be the same as artificial selection -- natural selection aided by humans. The other is via genetic manipulation -- specifically recombinant DNA.
This is not limited to viruses. Domesticated crops and animals were developed through artificial selection; GMO foods via genetic manipulation.
The author said GoF research on viruses usually does not mean making them more virulent or infectious.
The author also said Fauci was wrong, but did not lie. I think that is an important point. These days, when people disagree, they tend call one another liars.
https://www.virology.ws/2021/09/09/gain-of-function-explained/
This article may better explain the disagreement with Racaniello's "I want readers to understand that the goals of GoF research are laudable, and only a small subset has the potential to harm humans."
And "Consequently these experiments are highly regulated and carried out under high levels of biological containment."
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-gain-of-function-research-a-risk“The record of laboratory accidents and accidental infections in the most secure and highly scrutinized government labs shows that such accidents are inevitable,” Lipsitch wrote in one of his many papers on the topic."
"Those instances are just a sample. The American Biological Safety Association maintains a database of hundreds of case studies of laboratory-acquired infections, in case you really want to panic. To be clear, this is not a list of leaks specifically related to GOFROC, but the point is that lab accidents happen with surprising regularity."
"Moreover, Bryce Nickels told me there is a temptation for scientists to work at lower safety levels, because fewer restrictions make research easier to conduct. Some of the coronavirus research conducted in Wuhan was done at BSL-2—a level that a number of experts believe is far too low."
"Recently, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity met to discuss potential new oversights. Among their findings: the definition of ePPP is too narrow, greater transparency in the review process is needed, and there should be oversight of ePPP research regardless of the funding source."
Fauci asked in the days around Feb 1, 2020 if the EcoHealth grant went thru ePPP review and was told it did not appear that it did.
And there is no transparency as to who the individuals are who do the ePPP review.
RecentWTF happened to the WTF h... by Reacher
WTF is wrong with the lef... by Custard
wtf is wrong with the rig... by illiniray
Total Members: 142