It is clear that the scientists who conducted the experiments that triggered this debate (2, 3), and who are among those who voluntarily signed onto the moratorium, have conducted their research properly and under the safest and most secure conditions.
However, the issue that has been intensely debated is whether knowledge obtained from these experiments could inadvertently affect public health in an adverse way, even in nations multiple time zones away. Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations.
In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?
Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.
(So accd. to Falsi its OK for the bat-lady to do pretty much whatever she wants with gain of function,hes to blame for the plannedemic we have and than the kill shot many took.)
However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally.
We cannot expect those who have these concerns to simply take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place.
Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.
............
Throw this guy under the jail.
NO! the real name for 'gain of function' could well be 'biological warfare'! Ostensibly the thinking goes like this: What if this harmless virus (to humans) were to mutate into a virulent virus deadly to humans? So 'gain of function' research is done to see what sort of deadly virus might be produced in order to see what sort of cures can be created to stem the spread of the deadly pathogen.
Of course all such research has only the most noble motives... but what if some enterprising opportunist should suddenly realize, Hey! This research could be used in order to develop a bio weapon!
But what are the chances of that happening?
To me, the most telling aspect of CoViD-19 potentially being the result of gain of function bio engineering - not a zoonotic leap (Because every virus has evolved to target a particular species, it's rare for a virus to be able to jump to another species) was one of the earliest suspicions mentioned by virologists: how did a bat virus achieve a major mutation to be able to use the human enzyme ACE2 (angiotensin converting enzyme 2) to invade specific human tissue, especially pulmonary tissue?
Such advanced mutation of a virus would normally involve much time and long trans-species exposure. Such virologists as Li Meng Yan noted this anomaly early on.
The real issue in this present pandemic however is not whether it is natural or engineered, it is why the infection was encouraged to infect a global population ... and who might have benefited the most from such 'carelessness'?