6 ms·

>"despite some crazy people in this world" Is making biological weapons of mass destruction crazy? Fauci does not think so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/op

>"despite some crazy people in this world" Is making biological weapons of mass destruction crazy? Fauci does not think so. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking/2011/12/30/gIQAM9sNRP_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor...

kadoban 5y ago
That editorial advocates nothing of the sort. It's talking about studying viruses in the lab to improve our ability to fight them, and specifically mentions the risks involved and the need to keep these studies/viruses secure.
- loveistheanswer 5y ago
  The politically correct term that the editorial is advocating for is gain of function research. Here's a quote from one of the referenced NIH studies in the editorial which makes it plain: >"laboratory experiments that resulted in viruses with enhanced transmissibility in mammals" Gain of function enhanced viruses are inherently dual use, so calling them biological weapons of mass destruction is not hyperbole.
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    It's FUD.
    - loveistheanswer 5y ago
      What is?
- cameldrv 5y ago
  Yes, but these studies involve creating new, more dangerous viruses, that are not found in nature. We then depend on perfect containment to avoid sparking a pandemic, despite numerous examples of even high level containment failing.
  - belltaco 5y ago
    You could say the exact same thing about nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and yet they have seen massive and widespread use. Dangerous things need to be contained really well, regardless of whether this virus leaked or not. Natural dangerous respiratory virus outbreaks do occur from time to time so it's better to be ready against them which also steels us against lab leaks.
    - cameldrv 5y ago
      Personally, I think that on balance, nuclear energy is a positive thing. It generates a lot of carbon and pollution free electricity. When containment is lost, the consequences are at least mostly localized. With this GoF research, the potential downside is extremely large. COVID was really bad. As it is, it's responsible for 3.5 million confirmed deaths so far. This is several orders of magnitude worse than Chernobyl. This isn't even the worst case scenario though. GoF work has also been done with enhanced flu viruses that could have IFRs above 10%. With something like that you could be looking at upwards of 100 million deaths. Those are really extreme consequences, on par with a total nuclear exchange between the US and USSR. And then, what do we get out of all of this? For all of the Coronavirus GoF research they did, how did any of that help us at all against COVID?
  - kadoban 5y ago
    It's still a _highly_ biased characterization of the editorial. Your take here is nuanced and fair, and I would not disagree at all. The comment I responded to was drastically different.
    - loveistheanswer 5y ago
      What is "biased" about calling dual use technologies such as artificially enhanced viruses weapons of mass destruction? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology#Biological https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology#Biologic...
      - 5y ago

kadoban 5y ago

That editorial advocates nothing of the sort. It's talking about studying viruses in the lab to improve our ability to fight them, and specifically mentions the risks involved and the need to keep these studies/viruses secure.

loveistheanswer 5y ago
The politically correct term that the editorial is advocating for is gain of function research. Here's a quote from one of the referenced NIH studies in the editorial which makes it plain: >"laboratory experiments that resulted in viruses with enhanced transmissibility in mammals" Gain of function enhanced viruses are inherently dual use, so calling them biological weapons of mass destruction is not hyperbole.
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  It's FUD.
  - loveistheanswer 5y ago
    What is?
cameldrv 5y ago
Yes, but these studies involve creating new, more dangerous viruses, that are not found in nature. We then depend on perfect containment to avoid sparking a pandemic, despite numerous examples of even high level containment failing.
- belltaco 5y ago
  You could say the exact same thing about nuclear energy and nuclear weapons and yet they have seen massive and widespread use. Dangerous things need to be contained really well, regardless of whether this virus leaked or not. Natural dangerous respiratory virus outbreaks do occur from time to time so it's better to be ready against them which also steels us against lab leaks.
  - cameldrv 5y ago
    Personally, I think that on balance, nuclear energy is a positive thing. It generates a lot of carbon and pollution free electricity. When containment is lost, the consequences are at least mostly localized. With this GoF research, the potential downside is extremely large. COVID was really bad. As it is, it's responsible for 3.5 million confirmed deaths so far. This is several orders of magnitude worse than Chernobyl. This isn't even the worst case scenario though. GoF work has also been done with enhanced flu viruses that could have IFRs above 10%. With something like that you could be looking at upwards of 100 million deaths. Those are really extreme consequences, on par with a total nuclear exchange between the US and USSR. And then, what do we get out of all of this? For all of the Coronavirus GoF research they did, how did any of that help us at all against COVID?
- kadoban 5y ago
  It's still a _highly_ biased characterization of the editorial. Your take here is nuanced and fair, and I would not disagree at all. The comment I responded to was drastically different.
  - loveistheanswer 5y ago
    What is "biased" about calling dual use technologies such as artificially enhanced viruses weapons of mass destruction? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology#Biological https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology#Biologic...
    - 5y ago