I’m starting a 24h poll to check the public understanding of gain-of-function research.
What will follow is a series of experiment scenarios. Participants are invited to pick: Yes, No, I don’t know.
Please don’t Google to find answers. Answer based on your understanding.
First one should be easy.
Is this gain-of-function?
Serially (consecutively, repeatedly) passaging a virus through cells or animals (infecting these with the virus) to intentionally derive a more infectious or lethal virus.
Second one:
Is this gain-of-function?
Serially passaging a novel virus from nature in cells to find a version that can be grown and studied in the laboratory.
Is this gain-of-function?
Engineering cells that help scientists to grow more viruses in the lab for study.
Is this gain-of-function?
Engineering animals that, when infected with a given virus, are a good model to study the disease caused by the virus in humans.
Is this gain-of-function?
Experiments that select viruses for vaccine-, antibody-, or drug-resistance in order to predict mutations of concern.
Is this gain-of-function?
The evolution experiment in the previous tweet but the virus protein has been isolated for the experiment so no live virus is used.
Is this gain-of-function?
Engineering a new feature or mutation into a virus that is very likely (historical or precedent data has shown) to result in increased infectivity or severity of disease.
Is this gain-of-function?
The same experiment as in the previous tweet but the virus protein of interest has been isolated so no live pathogen is used.
Is this gain-of-function?
Switching genes between known human pathogens.
Is this gain-of-function?
Switching genes between animal pathogens that are suspected to be potentially somewhat capable of infecting humans.
Is this gain-of-function?
Taking parts from a novel virus from nature and putting it in a lab virus for study. Neither virus has been demonstrated to cause human disease.
Is this gain-of-function?
An experiment, regardless of intent, where multiple potentially pathogenic viruses have the opportunity to co-infect cells or animals.
Is this gain-of-function?
Finding a natural virus that can already spread well and cause disease in humans. Studying this in the lab without enhancing it.
Is this gain-of-function?
The scenario in the previous tweet, but with the intent to use it on people.
Last one:
Is this gain-of-function?
Studying parts of human pathogens and adapting them for other uses.
For example, taking reverse transcriptase from viruses and using it in diagnostics.
Please help me to share this poll with other people in your circles so that it’s not just people who follow me and #OriginsOfCovid
I want to get a sense of the breadth of different perspectives on what is gain-of-function research.
Just surpassed 1,000 votes in the first question of the poll.
The range of answers is incredible!
I'll comment on the results tomorrow morning, but would be great to keep sharing this poll with more people - scientists and non-scientists - till then!
Getting feedback that it might be good to point participants to some gain-of-function documentation. To keep it brief, this older thread might be useful. Links to documents included.
TLDR the range of experiments that can be reasonably considered *by some* to be GOFRoC is vast.
Also, I know that the niche experts participating in this twitter poll are suffering heartburn from the lack of an “it depends” option.
I thought about this feedback but it would lead to some people just clicking “it depends” for everything as an easy way out of the survey.
There is no cheat sheet for this survey and no grading on a curve.
If it has generated food for thought, discussion across the aisle, and maybe even inspired some science writers or journalists to do a deep dive on this topic of gain-of-function / potential pandemic pathogens...
I promised an analysis of This Week in Virology x Bob Garry on #OriginsOfCovid but was stunned by recent events, e.g., the lead, most vocal author of Proximal Origin @NatureMedicine correspondence article deleting half of his tweets and then his account.
I'll do it now, after spending a large amount of time reassuring (rebutting) people that I'm not a Canadian-Chinese-US NIH-suck-up scientist-spy with connections to the billionaire class.
S = scientific arguments
NS = non-scientific arguments
Garry says the 1st Proximal Origin draft was completed Feb 1.
SARS2 (Covid-19) genome was released Jan 11.
By Feb 1, they did not yet have access to RaTG13 (the closest genome match still) or the pangolin coronaviruses... unless we get more FOIA'ed emails to show otherwise.
I've done an insane amount of tweeting this past year (more than 10,000 tweets) and co-authored 2 articles with Matt in the @WSJ and @Telegraph
But, a friend told me that these would all be lost & scattered with time.
If you write a book (a very good one), it can become canon.
I know that there will be possibly dozens of books on the #OriginsOfCovid - many on the politics & management of the pandemic in different countries (especially the US and China), and several very focused on persuading us that this virus definitely has natural origins.
The problem with being a moderate is that you get bashed by people on both sides, depending on where the momentum is at that given moment.
More than a year ago, I said we should consider the lab leak hypothesis, regardless of how likely, not just natural origins #OriginsOfCovid
The natural origins crowd called me a conspiracy theorist, misinformation-spreader, attention-seeker, outsider with no proper expertise.
This year, I still have the same position: we should consider the lab leak hypothesis, not just natural origins.
Now the lab origins crowd calls me disingenuous, a coward, an apologist, misinformation-spreader, attention-seeker, an insider with ties to gain of function research.
I’m going to make a long thread later today going through natural origin arguments recently presented on TWiV and the Washington Post. But before that, I think the responsible thing to do is to explain what virology is.
What do virus researchers do? Why is this work important?
With the lab leak hypothesis #OriginsOfCovid now being considered seriously, there’s been some new concerns or fears about what virus researchers / virologists are doing in the lab and why they grow and study viruses in the first place.
I’d say that, in my experience, very few virologists are engaged in dual use research. Most of the virologists working on pathogens are sincerely just trying to understand the biology of the virus, build models of the infection, and find ways to treat patients.