> First off -- and this should be enough by itself -- the research the Wuhan lab did hasn't appeared to have helped in a material way to fight the COVID pandemic. So they gambled, lost, and there is nothing to show for it.
You can't possibly claim that without being a qualified expert in the field. I'm not, but I have asked friends who are--and they're quite firm that this type of experimental research (1) did help speed up our COVID-19 response, and save lives, and (2) is critical to prevent future outbreaks from becoming much, much worse.
I'm not asking for journal cites or anything, but I am curious: What's the source of your conclusion that gain-of-function research didn't help prevent the COVID-19 pandemic from becoming even worse?
But if you look at the actual examples they provide, they're incredibly weak. Remdesivir wasn't discovered due to GoF research, and wasn't tested in humans solely due to any result from GoF research; but GoF research did provide some of the early evidence that prompted the first human trials. Unfortunately remdesivir also shows little evidence of efficacy in humans:
They also cite minor contributions to some novel vaccine candidates that as far as I can tell haven't progressed to humans. And these examples are from Ralph Baric's lab; while he may have been reckless, his research was less controversial than the WIV's, working at higher BSL and with fewer novel pathogens. The WIV took significantly greater risks, and so far has literally zero practical benefit to show for it.
Virology in aggregate has clearly provided a benefit to humanity, in this pandemic and elsewhere. That's not the question, though. The deliberate search for enhanced potential human pandemic pathogens--including both laboratory gain-of-function on such pathogens, and sampling missions to remote sites to find new natural pathogens in areas that no other humans routinely visited, and thus that presented no obvious risk of natural spillover--is a tiny subset of virology.
We could ban that tiny subset, and we'd still have all our same vaccines, same anti-viral drugs, same tests, etc. If anyone tells you otherwise, then ask them for the evidence.
You can't possibly claim that without being a qualified expert in the field. I'm not, but I have asked friends who are--and they're quite firm that this type of experimental research (1) did help speed up our COVID-19 response, and save lives, and (2) is critical to prevent future outbreaks from becoming much, much worse.
I'm not asking for journal cites or anything, but I am curious: What's the source of your conclusion that gain-of-function research didn't help prevent the COVID-19 pandemic from becoming even worse?