Gain of Function Research

#2
#2
My gut says, no I don't support this research.

But I dont know what the purpose GOF research is.
 
#4
#4
Rasputin_Vol said:
Pay wall...
Click to expand...

sorry - I got through so I assumed it was a freebie (no subscription on my end).

the short version is that it's not a good look for Fauci and Collins who continually weakened protections against funding this research and who keep the review process secret (names of people on the now "advisory" board are not known, no minutes are kept from meetings or other documentation).
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolinWayne
#5
#5
  • Like
Reactions: Weezy, NorthDallas40 and volinbham
#7
#7
I understand the purpose of gain of function research.

On one hand, it makes sense: evolve it as far and fast as possible so we can start making countermeasures now for when the same evolution happens in nature later.

On the other hand, do we really want an artificially hyper evolved virus to "accidentally" make it out into the wild again? Oh heck no.

It's a legitimately tough choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33, hog88 and McDad
#8
#8
volinbham said:
sorry - I got through so I assumed it was a freebie (no subscription on my end).

the short version is that it's not a good look for Fauci and Collins who continually weakened protections against funding this research and who keep the review process secret (names of people on the now "advisory" board are not known, no minutes are kept from meetings or other documentation).
Click to expand...
I notice sometimes if you open an article with a paywall from let’s say Twitter instead of your browser, it let’s you read it.
 
#9
#9
AshG said:
I understand the purpose of gain of function research.

On one hand, it makes sense: evolve it as far and fast as possible so we can start making countermeasures now for when the same evolution happens in nature later.

On the other hand, do we really want an artificially hyper evolved virus to "accidentally" make it out into the wild again? Oh heck no.

It's a legitimately tough choice.
Click to expand...
I like being prepared.

I don't like mistakenly or intentionally released super viruses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BisonVol, hog88 and AshG
#10
#10
AshG said:
I understand the purpose of gain of function research.

On one hand, it makes sense: evolve it as far and fast as possible so we can start making countermeasures now for when the same evolution happens in nature later.

On the other hand, do we really want an artificially hyper evolved virus to "accidentally" make it out into the wild again? Oh heck no.

It's a legitimately tough choice.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think it's a tough choice at all.

Don't **** with mother nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol, Matt2496, tnmarktx and 3 others
#11
#11
AshG said:
I understand the purpose of gain of function research.

On one hand, it makes sense: evolve it as far and fast as possible so we can start making countermeasures now for when the same evolution happens in nature later.

On the other hand, do we really want an artificially hyper evolved virus to "accidentally" make it out into the wild again? Oh heck no.

It's a legitimately tough choice.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the gain of function research drives the evolutionary process into 5th gear. We probably wouldn't encounter some of these changes in hundreds or maybe thousands of years if left to nature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG and hog88
#12
#12
AshG said:
I understand the purpose of gain of function research.

On one hand, it makes sense: evolve it as far and fast as possible so we can start making countermeasures now for when the same evolution happens in nature later.

On the other hand, do we really want an artificially hyper evolved virus to "accidentally" make it out into the wild again? Oh heck no.

It's a legitimately tough choice.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the plot of a Michael Crichton novel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grand Vol and hog88
#13
#13
If mother nature takes us out so be it. If it's the .gov I've got a big problem with it. Are we even sure viruses will evolve like this? How many super viruses on this level have we seen historically? One (the plague)?

I say don't go near it. It's not like the Chinese are going to share their secret sauce anyways.
 
#14
#14
Rasputin_Vol said:
Sounds like the gain of function research drives the evolutionary process into 5th gear. We probably wouldn't encounter some of these changes in hundreds or maybe thousands of years if left to nature.
Click to expand...

If I understand the process of evolution with regards to viruses correctly, it seems more likely that a highly-evolved virus would be more infectious but less deadly.

The point of a virus is to better propagate itself. A virus that kills its host quickly is less likely to reproduce in greater numbers. A virus that is less deadly maintains its hosts for a longer duration and thus able to spread farther for longer.

The most proficient viruses are ancient ones that wrote themselves into our DNA, but most cause no noticeable effect today. These are known as “endogenous retroviruses.”

An ancient retrovirus has been found in human DNA – and it might still be active


Endogenous Retrovirus - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Thus, evolutionarily-speaking, a virus should shift towards becoming more benign than more deadly over time.

Edit: Oddly enough, endogenous retroviruses comprise around 8% of human genetic code. Crazy to think that such a substantial amount of human DNA is made of foreign viral genes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeAllDay
#15
#15
volinbham said:
So I posted this article in the Coronavirus thread but I think it's a different topic. This article is quite eye-opening; particularly the GOF research on a flu strain with a 60% mortality rate.

Anyone here support this type of research?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/a-science-in-the-shadows/
Click to expand...

Would be great if someone could write a novel about this. Maybe have a crazy doctor create a being he can't control and then that thing escapes and kills people. Wonder when someone will write that book.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol, volinbham and OrangeEtBlanc
#19
#19
hndog609 said:
IIRC that was actually from space.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I haven’t read that one yet. I was a huge Crichton fan back in middle & high school (not exactly age-appropriate). Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Congo, Prey, Eaters of the Dead, Next, State of Fear, Disclosure, and Timeline were all great reads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#21
#21
OrangeEtBlanc said:
To be honest, I haven’t read that one yet. I was a huge Crichton fan back in middle & high school (not exactly age-appropriate). Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Congo, Prey, Eaters of the Dead, Next, State of Fear, Disclosure, and Timeline were all great reads.
Click to expand...

I liked them as well. EOTD reads a bit like Beowulf so it's not as friendly as some (I don't think most people realize that later became the move 13th Warrior). I haven't read Disclosure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeEtBlanc
#23
#23
OrangeEtBlanc said:
If I understand the process of evolution with regards to viruses correctly, it seems more likely that a highly-evolved virus would be more infectious but less deadly.

The point of a virus is to better propagate itself. A virus that kills its host quickly is less likely to reproduce in greater numbers. A virus that is less deadly maintains its hosts for a longer duration and thus able to spread farther for longer.

The most proficient viruses are ancient ones that wrote themselves into our DNA, but most cause no noticeable effect today. These are known as “endogenous retroviruses.”

An ancient retrovirus has been found in human DNA – and it might still be active


Endogenous Retrovirus - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

Thus, evolutionarily-speaking, a virus should shift towards becoming more benign than more deadly over time.

Edit: Oddly enough, endogenous retroviruses comprise around 8% of human genetic code. Crazy to think that such a substantial amount of human DNA is made of foreign viral genes.
Click to expand...
That would be true if it was active and moving through the population. Of course it would have to evolve to be more transmissible but less deadly.

But these guys are playing with viruses and building them from scratch sounds like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tntar heel and OrangeEtBlanc
#24
#24
volinbham said:
yes but it came back on our hardware so we kinda asked for it :)
Click to expand...

True...I think it was supposed to be sampling upper atmo for new and interesting bio bugs but then smacked into a ET rock and came down.

I wonder how many of those types of movies don't have us...to at least some degree, "asking for it"?
 
#25
#25
AshG said:
I understand the purpose of gain of function research.

On one hand, it makes sense: evolve it as far and fast as possible so we can start making countermeasures now for when the same evolution happens in nature later.

On the other hand, do we really want an artificially hyper evolved virus to "accidentally" make it out into the wild again? Oh heck no.

It's a legitimately tough choice.
Click to expand...
I dont like it because theoretically our body can keep up or catch up to normal evolution. Who knows if it can keep up or catch up to a super bug.

It doesnt even have to be an escape. But we see that bacteria at least are becoming more and more resistant to targeted meds. Same thing is going on with viruses I imagine. So these super cures just become OTC 10 years later, and what have we gained?

It makes us more dependent on medicine. Which is not a good thing.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top