This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It is with great anger that I say they're doing it again. Indeed, they never stopped.
https://biosafetynow.substack.com/p/you-couldnt-make-body-bags-fast-enough
They're making super dangerous airborne diseases in ferrets... For no good reason at all. Would this be dangerous for people? Who knows? You'd have to test it which is ethically and logically even more dangerous. So there is no value to this research. All we know is that 'this specific disease could be super dangerous' and they helpfully put its genome up on the internet.
If the disease is dangerous to humans like it is for ferrets and does leak out, then we're in for COVID with huge lethality rates, 30% rather than a measly 0.3%.
I think there is a real blindspot about people's motivations that many don't fully appreciate. There were all these conspiracy theories going around about how COVID was a US bioweapons attack against China or Iran, a plot to shackle everyone with vaccines... But so far as I can tell nobody had anything to gain besides publishing some 'good' papers. These scientists were just doing science with complete disdain for the risks. They were going out to caves to gather these coronaviruses and bring them to Wuhan. Daszak/Ecohealth were using humanized mice (mice that behave immunologically like humans) to assess pandemic potential of bat coronaviruses. They wanted to insert some furin cleavage sites too.
Then we get a virus in Wuhan. It's closest ancestor was from Laos. How did it get to Wuhan? In a truck. How did Covid get so good at infecting people? It was engineered, with those humanized mice. How did it get that weird furin cleavage site? Artificially.
And naturally the Wuhan virology database disappears due to 'hacking attempts' just before this virus is released. So nobody quite knows what viruses they were working with... Ironically this completely undoes even the silly scientific angle, they made all this effort to make a database of viruses and then conceal it forever due to 'hacking'.
And none of this is even helpful in any serious way! Who cares? The amount of super-dangerous viruses that could possibly exist is beyond measure. At least with AI there are some positive usecases.
Claude choked up even thinking and researching about this stuff that human scientists are getting paid to do. They keep doing it, there is no sign that they've stopped, even after the last lab leak killed tens of millions of people and made a huge inconvenience for everyone on the planet, they somehow persuaded everyone it was low-class to conspiracize about it. Everyone was just supposed to get over the experts bringing us Torment Nexus 1, Torment Nexus 2, 3 and 4 are still in the works (funded by taxpayers). The experts find that the experts were not to blame, there was some bat pangolin farce instead. They'll do it again unless stopped. GOF bioresearchers delenda est.
While I am far from 100% certain that Covid was a lab leak, I take the possibility seriously. I share your frustration with GOF research, there is no way in hell that the potential benefits are proportional to the risks.
Unless the lab is working in Antarctica, or at least a highly isolated environment with strict screening and quarantine for all workers (weeks to months) and far from population centers, it is a stupid game played for stupid prizes. If your primary motivation is a well stuffed CV, then I would not object if you were hit by a car. If the people doing it genuinely believe they are acting in the public interest, I am dismayed, and would still seek lawsuits for unconscionable negligence.
The best place to intentionally make hyper virulent and lethal novel pathogens is somewhere in the orbit of the Moon. If you can't do that yet, it's best not to try in the first place.
GOF is dangerous, but it's not useless. The Ebola vaccine was developed on top of GOF research on Ebola (including making an airborne variant)
I have not heard of this, but a quick perusal of the literature has not turned up anything that supports your claims.
There's no airborne variant of Ebola, even an artificial one, AFAIK. There were experiments on aerosolizing it, and the VSV vaccine was tested for ability to protect from aerosol exposure in Macaques, as a proxy for protection against bioterrorism.
I do not see a reason to phrase the claim the way you do, there appears to be little to support the claim that GOF helped with the vaccine (beyond the usual need to test the vaccine on the actual pathogen), let alone that GOF was strictly necessary for the purpose of making a vaccine. We make vaccines all the time without GOF, I do not see how it is a requisite. Ebola is not that special as a disease.
I do not want to jump to claiming that you are intentionally lying or being misleading, but I do still think you are factually incorrect, and I must insist on citations.
Edit: To be clear, I am specifically talking about GOF for virulence and lethality.
Technically it wasn't airborne Ebola; rather, they transplanted suspected virulence genes from Ebola into a replication-incompetent adenovirus. This adenovirus caused Ebola symptoms, confirming that these genes were the virulence genes.
I see that there's research out there where they did use modified adenoviruses to demonstrate pathology seen in Ebola.
But that is not the technique used to make the only FDA approved vaccine, ERVEBO. That was made through recombinant VSV. I will grant that they did try and make a an adenoviral-derived vaccine, which kinda sorta worked okay in monkeys.
Also, I am not claiming that GOF has zero utility, my core contention is that whatever actual and potential utility it might have is more than canceled out by the risks.
These researchers seem to have tried to produce only a single Ebola protein, they didn't try to make super-Ebola spread through sneezing. They didn't select for virulence or transmissibility, which is what people usually complain about when criticizing GOF. At least I do.
Also, I do not think you have supported your original claim. You said that "the" vaccine was made through GOF, which it was not. I would believe that those specific choice of words strongly implies the only vaccine actually being given to people. And making a modified adenovirus is very, very far from "airborne Ebola". Nothing of that sort seems to exist. I would go so far as to say it's misleading, a very large stretch of the facts as far as I can see them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link