[HN Gopher] A Science in the Shadows
___________________________________________________________________
A Science in the Shadows
Author : merename
Score : 38 points
Date : 2021-08-27 17:45 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.washingtonpost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.washingtonpost.com)
| AntiDyatlov wrote:
| Science as currently practiced is an existential risk:
|
| https://www.facebook.com/yudkowsky/posts/10159653334879228
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Why 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.
| AntiDyatlov wrote:
| The world resembles Beirut in 2019 more than one would think.
| xpe wrote:
| > 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.
| jpeloquin wrote:
| One of the frustrating things about discussing gain of function
| research is the vague and inconsistent definitions in play. Does
| a discussion participant consider it to be any application of
| recombinant DNA/RNA to viable viruses, bacteria, fungi,
| protozoans, etc.? Or only when the methods are expected to
| increase pathogenicity, and if so, by how much? Most everyone
| probably agrees that "the subset of research that enhances a
| pathogen to make it likely highly transmissible and virulent in
| humans (enhanced PPP)" [0] warrants either extreme caution or a
| straightforward ban, but the lower risk threshold that someone
| considers to demarcate ok / not ok just doesn't come across at
| all.
|
| To illustrate that the definition is both broad and variable:
| "The term gain-of-function (GOF) research describes a type of
| research that modifies a biological agent so that it confers new
| or enhanced activity to that agent. Some scientists use the term
| broadly to refer to any such modification. However, not all
| research described as GOF entails the same level of risk. For
| example, research that involves the modification of bacteria to
| allow production of human insulin, or the altering of the genetic
| program of immune cells in CAR-T cell therapy to treat cancer
| generally would be considered low risk" [0]. It's also possible
| to modify the agent to make it safer while preserving other
| aspects that need to be studied. For example, creating a model
| virus that has no pathogenicity, but depends on the Covid spike
| protein for replication so it can be used to study receptor
| binding and vaccine evasion safely.
|
| I wish we'd collectively chosen a clearer term, like "engineered
| potentially pandemic pathogenicity", that more closely matches
| our collective Covid-inspired concerns. Arguments about "gain of
| function" gives the dangerous stuff cover by mixing it together
| with innocuous experiments. Lack of clarity makes it easier to
| synthesize controversy, accidentally or intentionally, by mixing
| together statements about very different kinds of gain of
| function work. The Post says they identified 18 projects that
| "appeared to include gain-of-function experiments"--they should
| say exactly what risks those projects pose instead of leaving us
| with merely a vague and sinister implication.
|
| [0] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/gain-function-research-
| invol...
| feral wrote:
| The idea that we do gain of function research in urban areas is
| mind boggling to me.
|
| If someone told you they were working on experimental nuclear
| warheads, you'd think they were crazy if their lab was in a city.
|
| But they experiment with dangerous pathogens in cities of
| millions of people, and the janitors go home to their families
| every evening.
|
| I don't know whether covid escaped from a lab, and I don't know
| whether the benefits of GoF research outweighs the risks.
|
| But if the research is so important, it should be done in the
| desert somewhere with a long quarantine period on exit.
|
| I'm sure the appropriate labs are designed to never let the
| pathogens escape. Sure; when the stakes are this high, backstop
| it.
| bbfjgktmnrnrn wrote:
| They were asked about this recently on This Week in Virology,
| the most important virology podcast.
|
| They said that no scientist wants to work in a remote location,
| they want to have a city social life. Which is why these labs
| are typically located in million+ cities.
|
| They also said that this is safe, because no pandemic to date
| started from a lab, and that eventually it will be proven that
| this pandemic is zoonotic too.
|
| They also said that they do not understand why a year and a
| half in people keep on talking about this baseless conspiracy
| theory.
| feral wrote:
| > They said that no scientist wants to work in a remote
| location, they want to have a city social life. Which is why
| these labs are typically located in million+ cities.
|
| Sounds honest, but selfish given how the most recent pandemic
| took out the 'city social lives' of hundreds of millions of
| non-virologists. Hard to understand the cost:benefit there.
|
| > They also said that this is safe, because no pandemic to
| date started from a lab,
|
| That's got to be the least reassuring safety argument I have
| ever heard.
|
| >They also said that they do not understand why a year and a
| half in people keep on talking about this baseless conspiracy
| theory.
|
| Kills millions directly; massive indirect costs; a year and a
| half later virologists don't understand that its a problem
| that we're not certain it didn't come from a lab.
|
| Not an expert, but at these stakes, it makes it sound like
| there's no adults in charge.
| tzs wrote:
| > Kills millions directly; massive indirect costs; a year
| and a half later virologists don't understand that its a
| problem that we're not certain it didn't come from a lab.
|
| It has only been a year and a half. It typically takes
| several years or even decades to trace a new virus in
| humans back to its origin.
| AntiDyatlov wrote:
| Surely they don't believe the odds of GOF research producing
| a much more lethal pandemic than the one we're dealing with
| are 0%. At the same time, nobody ever showed that GOF
| research has benefits commensurate with the risks.
|
| It would appear the virologists are not trustworthy.
| sampo wrote:
| > I don't know whether the benefits of GoF research outweighs
| the risks
|
| It should be obvious now, that all the gain-of-function
| research done on coronaviruses didn't help at all with this
| pandemic. Gain-of-function researchers didn't contribute to
| vaccine development, vaccines were developed by different
| people.
| [deleted]
| oenetan wrote:
| https://archive.ph/V0Dfn
| andyxor wrote:
| It'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.
| jpeloquin wrote:
| They need to pivot every so often to keep engagement up. If the
| facts haven't changed, the spin has to change.
| tzs wrote:
| Something that later turns out to be true can still be a
| baseless conspiracy theory if the people that believe it do so
| for the wrong reasons.
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| What are "the right reasons"?
| andrewl wrote:
| This 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._
| xpe wrote:
| See 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"
| prox wrote:
| I 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.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| This may just drive the research underground, making it less
| regulated, and increasing the chances of some kind of disaster.
| AntiDyatlov wrote:
| Maybe, maybe not. If the main incentives behind GOF research
| are wanting to churn out papers, seems like the field would
| just vanish.
| prox wrote:
| It's pretty hard to do this stuff, you need a high level
| biolab, not many exist afaik.
| Vecr wrote:
| You don't _need_ a high level biolab, a negative pressure
| tent in your garage and a PAPR respirator would probably
| work fine. Not exactly super safe, though.
| skybrian wrote:
| I'm encouraged to see this article. There should be more public
| attention for efforts to make sure virus research safety
| protocols are good enough.
|
| It seems likely that investigations into the origin of the
| pandemic will remain inconclusive, but hopefully safety can be
| improved anyway.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-28 23:01 UTC)