Gain of Function Research–GoFR/DURC–Dual Use Research of Concern
Science is supposed to be about the discovery of the world around us, but lately, it seems more intent on discovering how to destroy the world around us. Apparently for every benign person of science, there is an entourage of usurpers who would bend every discovery to destruction.
Whenever the public gets wind of the potential danger and begins to clamor, committees are appointed; teams of experts are engaged; debates are scheduled; white papers are written; press conferences are conducted. And while the arguments rage, quietly behind the scenes, the destroyers steal away with the science, intent on their own agenda – which is why they funded the work in the first place.
Ethical Analysis from NIH.gov
“Gain-of-function research, GOFR involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research (when conducted by responsible scientists) usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. GOFR is a subset of “dual-use research”—i.e., research that can be used for both beneficial and malevolent purposes.”
The study goes on to describe how they are going to make sure that ethics will be considered in order to keep the world safe. Their premise is to learn how to protect us from mutating viruses. The issue is viruses don't typically mutate into pandemic potentials unless they are manipulated to do so. We need to remember that it isn't nature that is out to get us.
From Phys.org -
"The United Nations Biological Weapons Convention, which went into effect in 1975, forbids state parties from developing, producing, stockpiling, or otherwise acquiring or sharing biological agents, toxins and equipment that have no justification for peaceful or defensive purposes. There should be no research, then, whether gain-of-function or otherwise, that seeks to purposefully develop a biological weapon."
“Biological weapons disseminate disease-causing organisms or toxins to harm or kill humans, animals, or plants. They can be deadly and highly contagious. Diseases caused by such weapons would not confine themselves to national borders and could spread rapidly around the world. The consequences of the deliberate release of biological agents or toxins by state or non-state actors could be dramatic. In addition to the tragic loss of lives, such events could cause food shortages, environmental catastrophes, devastating economic loss, and widespread illness, fear and mistrust among the public.”
The group meets every 5 years or so to discuss what's new. You can learn more about who's in charge of keeping all those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction under control and what their plans are at this site - UNODA
An interesting point - in 2014 Obama induced a moratorium on GOFR. In 2016, after Trump had taken office, the NSABB gave their blessing in the resumption to GOFR, as long as they followed guidelines, of course. At some point in 2017, Fauci declared that Trump would be facing a surprise pandemic. It makes one wonder.
From the NSABB Executive Summary
"...A number of biosafety incidents at Federal facilities in 2014 prompted renewed efforts to promote and enhance biosafety and biosecurity. Concerns were also raised about certain “gain-of-function” (GOF) studies with the potential to generate pathogens with pandemic potential. The concerns centered on whether a pathogen with enhanced transmissibility and/or virulence could be accidentally or intentionally released from a laboratory, potentially exposing surrounding populations and possibly causing a wider pandemic."
Risk and Benefit Analysis of Gain of Function Research
This work was conducted under NIH Contract #HHSN263201500002C with Gryphon Scientific from March 20, 2015 to December 15, 2015. Revisions were made until April 2016.
“…most estimates of the transmissibility of the coronaviruses consider these pathogens to be insufficiently transmissible and sufficiently susceptible to control measures such that a global pandemic has a very minimal chance of occurring. For this reason, increasing the transmissibility of the coronaviruses could significantly increase the chance of a global pandemic due to a laboratory accident. Because SARS-CoV is more transmissible than MERS-CoV, a relatively modest increase in transmissibility of SARS-CoV could increase risk, whereas MERS-CoV must be made significantly more transmissible to drive risk."
From the Virology Blog
Here a seasoned scientist expresses his lack of concern that anyone would actually do bad things with GoF. Why would they? As for Mr. Fauci - there must be some misunderstanding, since this scientist feels that Fauci certainly would have no reason to lie to the world.
Says he, “The term Gain of Function is perhaps one of the most misunderstood in the scientific lexicon. I would like to explain what the phrase means from the perspective of a scientist who has done gain of function research for the past 40 years. Gain of function (GoF) research gives an organism a new property or enhances an existing one. The organism can be a virus, bacterium, fungus, rodent, bird, fish or anything that can be experimentally manipulated. (Technically, whales and elephants could be included in the definition, but it would be very difficult to do GoF research on them).
Many have the impression that GoF research involves making an organism more deadly – for example, increasing the capacity of a virus to cause disease. That impression is incorrect. [?!] Certainly GoF research might lead to a more dangerous organism, but most of the time that is not the goal."
The author of this article also states that, “The production of recombinant coronaviruses to assess pandemic potential was carried out in several laboratories, all funded by the NIH.” The press had accused Fauci of lying. The article said that Fauci told Congress that the NIH did not fund GoF coronavirus research and that perhaps Fauci was wrong in his definition of GoF, but that perhaps he was mistaken, but that did not mean he was lying.
Articles like these are part of the reason that there is so much confusion about what the actual truth is, and they highlight the disparity of people with different perspectives. No doubt this fellow loves science and it never occurred to him that someone might use it for evil. [Wonder how many mice and ferrets he's killed.]
No doubt whales and elephants are eternally grateful they aren't suitable subjects for experimentation of this type. Be sure to read the comments on this blog.