49 sats \ 4 replies \ @sb OP 24 Jul 2022 \ parent \ on: NIH [2011]: "insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus.” bitcoin
You call genetically engineering a pathogen orders of magnitude more lethal - and then specifically tweaking it for mammalian systems - "playing with ferrets". Sorry, but that's absolutely delusional. If you want to be an apologist for these scientists, you're free to do so of course. As someone who has considerable experience in the field, I can confirm that academic science has degraded to the point where Fiat money printing can incentivize researchers and professors to conduct abhorrent behavior. This needs to be talked about.
I'm upset that my children may be born into a world where some unelected bureaucrats in the NIH get to play god and test their sick experiments on the world's population.
Did you even read the article?
"In 2017, a change made under their watch removed the committee’s power to block the projects, recasting the panel as strictly an advisory body.
Another change at that time redefined gain-of-function research, giving NIH leaders greater leeway to approve projects without referring them to the review committee. Some researchers had complained that far-reaching reviews would slow NIH approvals and scientific progress."
And by the way, this is the Bezos Post talking. This was untouchable content just a few months ago. We must acknowledge the shocking pace of this narrative shift.
As someone with 'considerable experience in the field' you should also know that such 'sick experiments' are a tool to probe the effect of genetic changes and understand which natural mutations might lead to future pandemics.
While there are always risks (which are valid to be concerned about), the intent is to remain a step ahead of natural evolutionary processes, which already do a fine job of 'gain-of-function' without us.
Call it playing god or apologism if you like, but the fact is this sort of work can bring benefits in terms of surveillance and developing therapeutics ahead of time, so it's unlikely to stop.
reply
Benefits in terms of surveillance? Start a pandemic to learn about pandemics? You have some bad takes, amigo.
reply
Agreed. Is there any evidence out there that gain of function research has helped prevent large scale pandemics?
Because there sure is evidence that very research has caused a large scale one.
reply
It is also unlikely to stop because it has an unlimited fiat money printing machine funneling it. Do American citizens vote on the budget of the NIH? Do they buy bonds to fund these projects? Don't they deserve to know what they're getting their wealth debased for? I respect your view point but it is strange to see so much sympathy for unsupervised projects fueled by money created out of thin air.
reply