Why gain of function research?

I was listening the the news on NPR and some woman said "we need to find out how deadly these viruses can get", but she didn't say why. Nobody asked her how knowing that would help save people's lives.

Why gain of function research? How is making a virus more deadly going to help people? Can anyone explain that so it makes sense?

Yes I agree, it's retarded.

But we can't control every country so I guess we assume they might create a bio-weapon and if they do maybe we could be prepared for it.

That's how I look at it.

@metal-brain said
I was listening the the news on NPR and some woman said "we need to find out how deadly these viruses can get", but she didn't say why. Nobody asked her how knowing that would help save people's lives.

Why gain of function research? How is making a virus more deadly going to help people? Can anyone explain that so it makes sense?

There is a lot left to learn about virus-host biology, the requirements for species jumping, the adaptation of viruses for gene-corrective therapies etc. Sometimes answering these questions requires modifying viruses to study them.

In the US there are strict rules, and sometimes moratoriums e.g. in 2012.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x

@wildgrass said
There is a lot left to learn about virus-host biology, the requirements for species jumping, the adaptation of viruses for gene-corrective therapies etc. Sometimes answering these questions requires modifying viruses to study them.

In the US there are strict rules, and sometimes moratoriums e.g. in 2012.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x

"Sometimes answering these questions requires modifying viruses to study them"

How does that help? Explain why modifying viruses does anything but putting people in danger from a more deadly virus. You have explained nothing while requiring we have a leap of faith that modifying viruses is helpful is some unexplained way.

I have to build nuclear bombs to protect people from nuclear bombs. Trust me. I said so. That is how silly you sound.

@metal-brain said
"Sometimes answering these questions requires modifying viruses to study them"

How does that help? Explain why modifying viruses does anything but putting people in danger from a more deadly virus. You have explained nothing while requiring we have a leap of faith that modifying viruses is helpful is some unexplained way.

I have to build nuclear bombs to protect people from nuclear bombs. Trust me. I said so. That is how silly you sound.

The article I posted explains it well. We don't know the key bits of viruses that contribute to pathogenesis unless we mutate it and compare to native strains.

@wildgrass said
The article I posted explains it well. We don't know the key bits of viruses that contribute to pathogenesis unless we mutate it and compare to native strains.

You have explained nothing. You are the perfect example of explanations that are not explanations at all.

How does knowing "the key bits of viruses that contribute to pathogenesis" save lives? Once you know that, what are you going to use that knowledge for? How does it help?

I need to build nuclear bombs so I can understand how deadly they can be. How am I helping save lives? You are caught in the same type of circular nonsensical non explanation. For some reason you think that is a proper explanation when it is not. How are you doing more good than harm? You have not explained that at all.

Here is another non explanation as an example. The Tuskegee Institute needed to watch black people suffer so they could know how bad syphilis can get. Did I explain how that helped? Nope. Your explanation is no different. You never gave an explanation either. You gave a classic non explanation in a feeble attempt to pass it off as an answer.

Once again, how does that help people?

https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

@metal-brain said
You have explained nothing. You are the perfect example of explanations that are not explanations at all.

How does knowing "the key bits of viruses that contribute to pathogenesis" save lives? Once you know that, what are you going to use that knowledge for? How does it help?

I need to build nuclear bombs so I can understand how deadly they can be. How am I helping ...[text shortened]... s an answer.

Once again, how does that help people?

https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

I think the article I posted explained it well. They're not building the bomb. It's already built. They're trying to figure out how it works in order to disarm it. I don't necessarily know if it's good or bad, but it's certainly not nonsense as you describe it. The experiments have a purpose.

@wildgrass said
I think the article I posted explained it well. They're not building the bomb. It's already built. They're trying to figure out how it works in order to disarm it. I don't necessarily know if it's good or bad, but it's certainly not nonsense as you describe it. The experiments have a purpose.

No, the article does not explain it well. It does not explain how it is beneficial to anybody anymore than you did. When mad scientists do unethical research they respond with non explanations that require a leap of faith like you did.

Explain why gain of function research does more good than harm. You need to prove the ends justify the means if you think research is ethical. You have not done that and you keep referring to an article that doesn't do that either and I think you are well aware that it doesn't, otherwise you would post the relevant excerpts if it contained any.

If I gave answers that are not really answers like you did I would expect someone to call me on it and tell me I was insulting their intelligence. Do you have a real explanation or not? I could tell you the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male's purpose is to get data that we can learn from, but that does not justify the research as ethical or even very useful. That is what you are doing. You answer amounts to "well, scientists need to learn stuff" and that is not an acceptable explanation at all.

Now Pfizer is trying to change the definition of gain of function research. Here is the definition according to newsweek:

" The research involves taking a pathogen and mutating it so that it has a new aspect to it. Often, that new aspect of a virus that it's more transmissible or deadly to humans."

https://www.newsweek.com/what-gain-function-research-why-it-controversial-1612323

That is exactly what Pfizer admitted they did, yet they deny they did GOF research. They took a pathogen and mutated it so that it has a new aspect to it.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/wow-pfizer-does-not-deny-anything

@metal-brain said
No, the article does not explain it well. It does not explain how it is beneficial to anybody anymore than you did. When mad scientists do unethical research they respond with non explanations that require a leap of faith like you did.

Explain why gain of function research does more good than harm. You need to prove the ends justify the means if you think research is e ...[text shortened]... call me on it and tell me I was insulting their intelligence. Do you have a real explanation or not?

You are moving the goal posts because these questions about harm vs good are not the same as the OP. The answers to your original question are answered in the article. I don't take a position because Im not a virologist but it makes some salient points.

@wildgrass said
You are moving the goal posts because these questions about harm vs good are not the same as the OP. The answers to your original question are answered in the article. I don't take a position because Im not a virologist but it makes some salient points.

You are projecting again. This is what I posted in my OP:

"Why gain of function research? How is making a virus more deadly going to help people? Can anyone explain that so it makes sense?"

How is making a virus more deadly going to help people? The goal post is the same place it always has been. You simply did not answer my question and explain it so it makes sense. You just expect me to have the same leap of faith you did.

@metal-brain said
You are projecting again. This is what I posted in my OP:

"Why gain of function research? How is making a virus more deadly going to help people? Can anyone explain that so it makes sense?"

How is making a virus more deadly going to help people? The goal post is the same place it always has been. You simply did not answer my question and explain it so it makes sense. You just expect me to have the same leap of faith you did.

My leap of faith was hoping you would read the article explaining the science from a scientist rather than a news punch bot.

@metal-brain said
You have explained nothing. You are the perfect example of explanations that are not explanations at all.

How does knowing "the key bits of viruses that contribute to pathogenesis" save lives? Once you know that, what are you going to use that knowledge for? How does it help?

I need to build nuclear bombs so I can understand how deadly they can be. How am I helping ...[text shortened]... s an answer.

Once again, how does that help people?

https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

If you know what triggers the mutation, you can create counter-measures.
Imagine, if you will virus X-2.34

This is a virus in a second mutation in a 34th variant of that second mutation.
With me so far?
Now, say virus X-1 was far less deadly than virus X-2.
What you want to know is if virus X-2 mutates into X-3, if it will be more or less dangerous. You want to know what triggers that mutation (why not just a sub-mutation) and you want something that will counter-act as many mutations as possible.

The first step is check out the basic building blocks of X. Maybe there’s something there, that if you counter-act that, it will be an effective counter-measure for all mutations.

When that’s not the case?
You can try to recognise patterns in the mutations so you can reasonably counter-measure future mutations.

If there’s no reasonay distinct pattern? You have to discover triggers, etc.
That means grabbing virus X or X-2 by the scrotum and squeezing until you see what happens. Do it 10 times with the same result, then there’s a chance you can create counter-measures.
Etc.

It’s not a difficult concept. What they do in the lab obviously is, but basically the concept is the same as a car mechanic fixing a car.

Or maybe it’s an evil genius plotting world domination by pizza hut.

@shavixmir said
If you know what triggers the mutation, you can create counter-measures.
Imagine, if you will virus X-2.34

This is a virus in a second mutation in a 34th variant of that second mutation.
With me so far?
Now, say virus X-1 was far less deadly than virus X-2.
What you want to know is if virus X-2 mutates into X-3, if it will be more or less dangerous. You want to know ...[text shortened]... a car mechanic fixing a car.

Or maybe it’s an evil genius plotting world domination by pizza hut.

"You want to know what triggers that mutation (why not just a sub-mutation) and you want something that will counter-act as many mutations as possible"

What is that "something"? Explain how it would "counter-act".
You need to make sense of it for a credible explanation. You have a leap of faith in "something". You don't even know what that something is.

@wildgrass said
My leap of faith was hoping you would read the article explaining the science from a scientist rather than a news punch bot.

I did read it. Which ambiguous statement were you fooled into thinking made sense?
Don't blame your failure to reach a goal by falsely claiming the goal post was moved. Dishonestly blaming others will not get you any closer to the goal.

@metal-brain said
"You want to know what triggers that mutation (why not just a sub-mutation) and you want something that will counter-act as many mutations as possible"

What is that "something"? Explain how it would "counter-act".
You need to make sense of it for a credible explanation. You have a leap of faith in "something". You don't even know what that something is.

Seriously?
“Something” in this could be a vaccine, it could be a cure, it could be an anti-virus, it could be that you can manipulate the virus to mutate in a certain direction.

You’re looking for elephants on a Dutch highway.
You have an agenda and with anything that doesn’t fit, you think if you Socrates the hell out of it, your agenda will be proven.

It won’t.
Your agenda, namely, is a very narrow-minded, uneducated agenda, one you’ve latched onto because you think it makes sense.

Internationally speaking: you have no idea of what you are on about or how viral resesrch works.
So, you’re scared.

I’ve told you umpteen times: write to the professionals. You can pose these questions to universities, labs, health services. And they will all reply to you and explain things.