Wednesday, May 6, 2020

Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV). As discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, many participants argued that the word choice of “gain-of-function” to describe the limited type of experiments covered by the U.S. deliberative process, particularly when coupled with a pause on even a smaller number of research projects, had generated concern that the policy would affect much broader areas of virology research


ALTERNATIVES TO GOF RESEARCH

The essence of the debate around the risks and benefits of GoF research and the concerns it raises have naturally encouraged virologists on both sides of the debate to consider alternative methodological approaches. During his talk, Kawaoka discussed alternatives to GoF research mostly applicable to influenza research, such as loss-of-function research, use of low pathogenicity viruses, and phenotypic analyses. He further cited a review paper in which stated that “alternative scientific approaches are not only less risky, but also more likely to generate results that can be readily translated into public health benefits.” However, Kawaoka argued through specific examples that alternatives do not always provide the full answer to key questions. For instance, he cited work by and on mutations responsible for the loss of transmission capabilities of the 1918 influenza strain between ferrets and noted that this work required GoF research because a loss-of-function approach did not provide the complete picture. In addition, although working with low pathogenic avian influenza viruses provides a safer approach, Kawaoka explained that “highly pathogenic avian influenza differ from low pathogenic viruses in their kinetics of virus replication and tropism” and therefore the data can be misleading. Other alternatives discussed by Kawaoka and Dr. Robert Lamb, Northwestern University, in Session 8 of the symposium were cited from the recent review paper by Lipsitch and Galvani (Box 3.3). Kawaoka concluded that even if these approaches offer safer alternatives to GoF research of concern, for some questions researchers cannot rely solely on them because the phenotype of and the molecular basis for these new traits have been identified by GoF research but not by alternative approaches.

14 comments:

  1. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 6, 2020 at 9:21 PM

    In this 2015 paper, they allude to gain of functionin Humans, especially the ACE2 receptor. I don't think he quite spells out what that means. It means a rogue virus, which could very easily escape, can cause a highly contagious and highly deadly deadly pandemic, like what we are facing today, costing thousands of lives.


    Fauci was already an advocate of this kind of dangerous research


    https://mbio.asm.org/content/3/5/e00359-12


    And he quite arrogantly dismisses the meaning of this going wrong in the interview he gave yesterday.


    Furthermore, in any field of chemistry, or biochemistry, when experimenting with adding new groups to molecules, organic molecules, and viruses, you cannot predetermine what the result will be. This is very dangerous territory. Whilst , for example, you might melt 2 metals, eg steel and aluminium (inorganic chemistry) and then discover its strengths etc, with viruses, or other complex molecules, there can very easily be a detrimental outcome. What the gain of function might be cannot be predetermined, nor whether the chemical reaction will be as predicted. This means Frankenstein molecules - biological entities that don't even occur in nature, and that potentially are extremely dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  2. again this issue has been openly discussed for years not only by politicians but also the scientists. it is not a surprise and no need to use terms such as mamzer and Frankenstein molecules

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 6, 2020 at 9:40 PM

    Kilayim perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://time.com/5622660/american-biologist-suzanne-eaton-dead-crete/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 6, 2020 at 10:34 PM

    In any case, you digress from the points I make to nitpick on the tedrm "Frankenstein", which is regularly used in the debate on Genetically Modified organisms.
    The point I made is that the type of experiment is inherently unpredictable and dangerous, because it is dealing with unknown areas of biochemistry regardless of Dr fauci's or anyone else's knowledge of the field. It is like allowing kids to play with mixtures that could produce high explosives. The fact that it has been discussed and subsequently banned does not make it any safer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. i was merely pointing out that your hysterical response does not help dealing with a much debated issue

    there are clearly two sides to the issue and also different cost benefit evaluations. While there clearly is vocal minority which shares your views
    that is not the accepted view of the majority.

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://youtu.be/wW7lclOmgzE m

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 7, 2020 at 1:47 PM

    Here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/
    They quantity the risk of a pandemic killing 10million plus.
    The problem is, that risk is just a human calculation. It's not from Sinai.
    Is such a risk justifiable? Fauci seems to think so. I don't.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You should ask Trump if he will hire you as Fauci's replacement!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Um no, the "side" against gain of function research was NOT a minority. The people doing this work are the vocal minority. The majority expressed their reservations to enough of a degree that the government imposed a moratorium on this type of work in 2014. Later, HHS decided to end the moratorium, but that is a unilateral decision and none of us are privy to the deliberations, nor were the original opponents consulted on this.
    Read and learn https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext
    Mark Lipsitch puts it best.

    In order to judge the risk-benefit equation, someone has to at least put forth a benefit from this work, right? But no one can.

    Tracking down pathogens from animals and handling them in labs and making them transmissible .... Explain to me how that prevents a pandemic? It doesn't.

    And if you are imagining that somehow there will be advanced labs developing vaccines against all the future potential zoonotic leaps that might occur, to have millions of different vaccines prepared for a future event, 1. That doesn't even make sense, and 2. no one is doing that. Quite the fairy tale.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree that we don't need to ascribe bad motives to genuine arguments unless they are proven.
    However, we should not hesitate to point out the weaknesses of the arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 7, 2020 at 10:29 PM

    The problem is that teh USA itself funded this kind of bioweapon research at Wuhan. So even if a leak can be proven, the USA will need to investigate itself as well!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 8, 2020 at 12:21 AM

    That's right . here is Fauci extolling the virtues and benefits of doing such dangerous research https://mbio.asm.org/content/3/5/e00359-12
    PLus, making vaccines that work are not really possible before the virus is out - how else could it be tested on humans? Look at the problems we are facing now even in developing a single vaccine! It's an insane course to claim we can make vaccines in store by creating frankenstein viruses! why didnt fauci or the Chinese do this for covid 19?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 8, 2020 at 12:41 AM

    another one working on Coronavirus shot dead


    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/06/us/university-of-pittsburgh-professor-killed/index.html

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.