Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
The research that brought us cancer immunotherapy is not the same as the fauci type (ha!) didnât involve making things worse
per Ai
That said, there is no major therapy that exists solely because scientists made a pathogen more transmissible or more virulent. The most controversial subset of GOF researchâoften called enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) researchâis conducted to understand how dangerous pathogens might evolve naturally and to improve surveillance and preparedness. Supporters argue it helps identify emerging threats before they spread. Critics argue the practical benefits have been limited and may not justify the biosafety and biosecurity risks.
This all assumes researchers are pure of heart. At least one underqualified overzealous researcher was conducting research in this area with inadequate oversight. It's been a while since I read the books that talked about this guy (including Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna bio) which, IMO, increases the need to do this research (carefully, with oversight) so that the race to be first isn't left up to Chinese cowboys.
The research that brought us cancer immunotherapy is not the same as the fauci type (ha!) didnât involve making things worse
per Ai
That said, there is no major therapy that exists solely because scientists made a pathogen more transmissible or more virulent. The most controversial subset of GOF researchâoften called enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) researchâis conducted to understand how dangerous pathogens might evolve naturally and to improve surveillance and preparedness. Supporters argue it helps identify emerging threats before they spread. Critics argue the practical benefits have been limited and may not justify the biosafety and biosecurity risks.
No. Just no. It's not enough. It doesn't explain it away. It doesn't explain away the dangerous and ultimately deadly consequences of mishandling the research. Nothing said or attempts to explain will suffice. It, in fact, is not finished with us. I wish it were, but wishes are wishes. Just another reason to blow out the candles.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Annie Jacobsen is a Pulitzer Prize finalist, investigative journalist, and bestselling author. Her latest book, "Biological War: A Scenario," is out now.
You can claim that, but it feels like you are arguing from a forgone conclusion. GoF certainly has military applications. And to think that lots of government money would be spent without an eye toward that end is pretty naive. But the basic research has been going on for a couple decades and has real applications for real people - a friend of mine had a company doing this for MS is 2006, and they were making good progress, but ran into trouble with FDA approvals when there was a scandal around one of the flu viruses mutating and making a jump (this was ~ 2010). His take (biased, but he was a smart guy), was that it was overblown, but the FDA killed several promising therapies because of the PR issues. Pretty much anything we can imagine for good, can be corrupted by the military mindset.
If we are going to have lots of people, we are going to have to do some things to make their lives better as we keep them alive and they get weird diseases. Or we can turn them into the streets and have leper colonies again. Instead of fighting research, how about we reign in our military industrial complex? Let's make killing people (especially those 'other' people) less profitable, and remove the military from the public teat. Or at least limit them to a single teat and make them use their largess for more public good (think national guard/peace corps, not ICE deporting dishwashers).
Gee, I don't know if I should be grateful if some of the cancer treatments my wife has been administered over the past decade were the result of GoF or feel guilty that she's still here.
No. Just no. It's not enough. It doesn't explain it away. It doesn't explain away the dangerous and ultimately deadly consequences of mishandling the research. Nothing said or attempts to explain will suffice. It, in fact, is not finished with us. I wish it were, but wishes are wishes. Just another reason to blow out the candles.
Thanks for the thoughts.
You can claim that, but it feels like you are arguing from a forgone conclusion. GoF certainly has military applications. And to think that lots of government money would be spent without an eye toward that end is pretty naive. But the basic research has been going on for a couple decades and has real applications for real people - a friend of mine had a company doing this for MS is 2006, and they were making good progress, but ran into trouble with FDA approvals when there was a scandal around one of the flu viruses mutating and making a jump (this was ~ 2010). His take (biased, but he was a smart guy), was that it was overblown, but the FDA killed several promising therapies because of the PR issues. Pretty much anything we can imagine for good, can be corrupted by the military mindset.
If we are going to have lots of people, we are going to have to do some things to make their lives better as we keep them alive and they get weird diseases. Or we can turn them into the streets and have leper colonies again. Instead of fighting research, how about we reign in our military industrial complex? Let's make killing people (especially those 'other' people) less profitable, and remove the military from the public teat. Or at least limit them to a single teat and make them use their largess for more public good (think national guard/peace corps, not ICE deporting dishwashers).
No. Just no. It's not enough. It doesn't explain it away. It doesn't explain away the dangerous and ultimately deadly consequences of mishandling the research. Nothing said or attempts to explain will suffice. It, in fact, is not finished with us. I wish it were, but wishes are wishes. Just another reason to blow out the candles.
Thanks for the thoughts.
Question- Why is gain of function research necessary? For what possible reason? Does it matter? Is it a secret? Is there a benefit to mankind? Who pays for it? The living? The dead?
Who is responsible for the creation and subsequent release of such a horrific concept.? To what end? Where are the benefits? How much money has been invested in it at what cost to mankind? How could anyone possibly support such a thing or anyone associated with it's hellish consequences? When science becomes religion who will worship at the alter of destruction?
Many cell therapies, including cancer treatments and MS treatments have come out of GoF research/applications.
Question- Why is gain of function research necessary? For what possible reason? Does it matter? Is it a secret? Is there a benefit to mankind? Who pays for it? The living? The dead?
Who is responsible for the creation and subsequent release of such a horrific concept.? To what end? Where are the benefits? How much money has been invested in it at what cost to mankind? How could anyone possibly support such a thing or anyone associated with it's hellish consequences? When science becomes religion who will worship at the alter of destruction?
