Thread by @Ayjchan

Watching my twitter feed implode because of Rand Paul vs Fauci, talking past each other with different definitions of gain-of-function research. forbes.com/sites/jackbrew…

The EcoHealth/WIV work did not fall under the 2014 moratorium definition of GOF research. Maybe it falls under some scientists' definition of GOF, but not the moratorium's.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1370898280788287493?s=20

Not just because there was a loophole in a footnote, but that the GOF definition literally excluded SARS or MERS viruses found in nature. That's what WIV was working with - viruses found in nature. As a result it wasn't counted as GOF in the moratorium.

https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1370892716951932931

I'm not saying that this GOF definition is right or wrong.

If you don't like this particular definition, then start a new moratorium?

Some people (including scientists?!) are saying that anything that confers a gain of function = GOF research that should have been banned.

But in biology, most experiments are a gain or loss or perturbation of function, or uses a product of a gain or loss of function experiment.

Putting green fluorescent protein in animals (for novelty or more likely for research) is literally a gain of function.

In fact, I made some green fluorescent tadpoles when I was in school.

I could not find a cool gif for GFP in animals... why have scientists not made twitter gifs for GFP animals yet!

The wording: "The funding pause will not apply to the characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses unless there is a reasonable expectation that these tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity."
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/10/1…

Based on that wording, the WIV/EcoHealth grant was testing naturally occurring SARS viruses, without a reasonable expectation that the tests would increase transmissibility or pathogenicity.

Therefore, it is reasonable that they would have been excluded from the moratorium...

In hindsight, a lot of people today might say "wow, think of the risks." But if you go back 6-7 years, it wasn't so clear to scientists what the risks were for this type of research - studying naturally occurring viruses in the lab.

I know some people have very strong opinions on this (mostly in the "isn't it obvious!" vein).

I'm not covering for anyone. I'm just pointing out the definitions that are in governmental webpages. If you have a problem with these definitions, write a letter to the government?

Ok, I'm going to go relax now.