Talk:Gain-of-function research/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The idea that SARS-CoV-2 was constructed in a lab is a conspiracy theory, per reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects those. Silently changing this to "theory" is problematic.

talk

) 11:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fact is the reliability of these sources has been put in question by other sources and individuals (the modifications you reverted pointed to such doubts, coming from both scientists and Biden administration officials). Having read the sources you mentioned, I found nothing more than authoritative arguments (one the most convincing being: "Even Trump said it!"). Olivier Peltre (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A theory may be either true or false, while a conspiracy theory is generally regarded as false. Regarding facts, this page has the right to mention that 1) GOF research has been conducted on coronaviruses in Wuhan, as per reliable sources (meaning: from peer-reviewed publications from the very scientists having conducted this research) and 2) Laboratory accidents do happen (meaning: have happened in the past, e.g. several reported SARS-Cov-1 recontaminations, and various older concerns reported in the rest of this page). Please trust I do not wish to feed a sterilous debate on the subject and do not believe Wikipedia is the place for opinion debates. I am only surprised to find the GOF page biased on such a matter. If you think neutral exposition of points 1) and 2) should be censored on the WP, please say so. Olivier Peltre (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure what that means, but there is no doubt there have been conspiracy theories about this per

talk

) 12:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree there has been conspiracy theories. I’m concerned with lapidary discredit on the possibility of accidental lab contamination, a pathway still under investigation. This possibility raises issues regarding the pursuit of GOF research. Olivier Peltre (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide what research is funded and how, but only reports about reliably published results of such findings. Unless there was reliably published evidence, presenting a false balance to suggest that leaks or bioengineered virii may be linked to the pandemic violates

WP:NPOV. Unduely pushing such suggestions results in echoing minsinformation and conspiracy theories (with penty of sources reporting on that)... —PaleoNeonate

– 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How can accidental release be a conspiracy theory when (1) a natural intermediary has yet to be found, (even after a large search), and; (2) accidental release is one of the reasons it is controversial(a reason provided in the page text itself) and the epicenter was near one of the few places on Earth where gain of function research is known to be done? If it was a known risk and other etiological theories are not supported, where is the justification for calling it a "conspiracy theory"...other than for political reasons?

Olivier, Wikipedia will never be neutral on any issue that is even tangentially political. Wikipedia's "reliable sources" are what we must use to edit the main articles. Since there is overwhelming bias in the "reliable sources" those biases will be reflected and amplified in Wikipedia. It's the nature of this Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.183.247 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Virtually all of the questions and answers/statements posted here since February by participants in this "Neutrality on Cov2 controversies" discussion need to be revisited from scratch. The gain of function hypothesis and the lab-leak hypothesis are now being published by mainstream media reliable sources and quoted statements from leading figures in the medical science and policy community. Remember, hypotheses never require proof (tho they ask for it), and the zoonotic source hypothesis has no proof, and in fact has less evidence than the gain of function and lab leak hypotheses. 108.185.102.135 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@

I'm not a person you pinged, but I agree. The original writer of this article seemed to have a POV, and it might have spilled over into how they structured the article. Sounds like this biological weapons stuff might be

WP:SYNTH. I support your proposed re-structuring. Whenever possible, Wikipedia should favor the academic consensus of what a term means. We can always mention that biological weapons development is different in one sentence, and link to the appropriate article for that. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 15:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm only really interested in how GoF interacts with the lab leak conspiracy theory, and so far as I know the conspiracy theorists invoking GoF don't necessarily associate it with bioweapons (in fact, I get the impression they avoid talkig about bioweapons to appear more credible).

talk

) 16:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@

Alexbrn: OK - I've removed all the stuff that doesn't mention gain-of-function research, or that is redundant. The 2014 symposium *does* mention gain of function research but that's already addressed in the last section of the article, "controversy." -Darouet (talk

) 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Some lab leak or bioweapons claims proponents have attempted to connect the dots with GoF and a previous article revision mentions bioweapons (or at least to aim the article in the direction of potential dangers of biological research). Here's an earlier version. —PaleoNeonate – 09:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Gain of function research involves serial passage, which is not a new technology and is not the topic of this article. The topic of this article should be the biosafety and biosecurity concerns with certain type of serial passaging experiments. The concern with gain of function research is with experiments that create a combination of high pathogenicity, high transmissibility among mammals and evasion from all available countermeasures - in the same agent - that does not (to our knowledge) exist in nature. This is the definition given by David Relman in this video at the Gain of Function Symposium.

This page should be renamed to one of the following more apt titles:

1: Potential Pandemic Pathogens as per Marc Lipsitch's suggestion at the Symposium, published papers, and US Government regulations. https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/gain-of-function-research/

2: Gain of Function Research of Concern as per Yoshihiro Kawaoka's suggestion at the Gain of Function Symposium and its use by Marc Lipsitch in this paper. http://www.cambridgeworkinggroup.org/documents/lipsitch.pdf

3: aTRIP, as per Paul Duprex and Arturo Casadevall - an acronym for an experiment that uses or more of the DURC agents and produces, aims to produce, or can be reasonably anctipated to alter Transmission, Range and resistance, Infectivity/immunity or Pathogenesis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271557/

From these sources, it is clear that most scientists agree that the term "Gain of Function Research" is too general to represent their concerns to the lay public.

AvidTyper (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the scope of this article is broader than just concerns, as the sources reflect broad application in biomedical research.[3]

talk

) 06:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In a literal sense, GoFR is a series of passaging experiments and most of the articles in PubMed are about such experiments. In Public policy and Public health, GoFR is an imperfect scientific neologism coined for the discussion on the biosafety and biosecurity concerns of experiments creating Potential Pandemic Pathogens. AvidTyper (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The literal sense seems good. If there's been some neologising, and if there are secondary sources for that, that could be covered too; there is already a "biorisk concern" section here.

talk

) 06:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Outside of biorisk concern, there isn't anything to Gain of Function Research as a field. Its not a field of medical research, per say. GoFR refers to a method of experimentation with microbes. There are already articles on Wikipedia about Serial passage and Mutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvidTyper (talk • contribs)

That would seem to be incorrect based just on the sources which already exist in the article.

talk

) 11:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper, "likely block evasion" is indeed an explanation. The article was created by banned user ScrupulousScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a known sockpuppet user focused on the same promotion of the lab leak conjecture. Everything about your edit history indicates that you are the same person. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not that editor. Why did you revert all my edits? AvidTyper (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:COI with respect to the Cambridge Group that you have promoted in this article. Note that this article was started by an abusive user, and so was Gain of function (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both used sockpuppets to promte their agenda. Guy (help! - typo?

) 11:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You are making spurious accusations on all accounts. Gain of function research and the Cambridge group have been all over the news this past week. I improved the article by adding content and sources which you deleted without explanation. AvidTyper (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the question of sockpuppettry has been raised in the proper location: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScrupulousScribe.

I've looked at what AT added. Though I do not agree with all the edits. I do not immediately see which of them is promoting fringe views. The ones I really disagree with is the insertion of lists of scientists who support a position.--that's not good encyclopedic writing. Some edits are insertion of refs to articles in reliable scientific sources, tho I need to check the description of them is accurate (or did I miss any where the article is not in a high quality source?) Also, giving them separate section heading is poor quality organization of an article and overemphasis, Most are copyedits. Some of them are a little questionable--revision of sentence to allow capitalization for emphasis of what need not be capitalized, the insertion of "virus" and similar words too frequently where they are already implied, which in some cases may be overemphasis, , and I think there was some duplication of links that were already present. Others seem OK, or at least justifiable. But there's no point look to see what should be put back until the sockpuppettry question is answered by someone not concerned with the article. I agree , of course, that edits in a possibly controversial article by spas usually do at least present a question . DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead for this article talks about "Gregor Mendel-style" hybridization and selective breeding, and then the body immediately delves into CRISPR gene splicing. This is completely inconsistent and confusing to the average reader. In the present day, gain of function usually refers to gene insertions (or deletion I suppose) 108.185.102.135 (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's actually both. Some examples of modern GOF (such as the successive passaging of H5N1 in ferrets) are more mendel-like. And others are more strictly genetic engineering (such as Dr. He Jiankui's CRISPR babies in China). But yes I fixed that aspect of the "passaging" part of the lead. We're breaking all sorts of

The wiki is a work in progress and, in my humble opinion, it's getting better in this article specifically.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink Thanks for fixing the problem. I was just restoring content I wrote earlier which I may not have reviewed properly at the time. The Fouchier and Kawaoka experiments were what sparked a lot of the academic debate around GoFR, so I made sure to include the missing Fouchier part and leave the merging to you. AvidTyper (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and that makes sense. But I would also tell you that there was probably a reason that many editors saw those edits as POV-pushing. I definitely see them that way. Be careful how you use the word "claimed." The research cannot claim anything, it has no agency. The proponents claimed X. or, more NPOV, cited X benefits.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink Gotit. The DURC section is important. The lay audience should understand that not all GoFR is of concern, as I explained in an earlier discussion above. Thank you for taking the time out of your studies to improve this page. AvidTyper (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper Just realized that when you restored that content you rewrote sections I fixed already, please stop doing that. If you have an issue with how I'm portraying NPOV, bring it to the talk page don't just revert without explanation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink you rewrote the section in the lead, but the DURC deserves its own section in the main body of the article due to the prominence of the issue in academia and the lay press. I restored it from something I wrote a few weeks ago which was removed without explanation and may require further copyediting, but it's all in good faith. Perhaps one of the original authors of this article like Magnovvig can help rewrite the section and improve the article further. AvidTyper (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that section at all. I'm talking about the history in the US component. Why would you copy paste back an entire version of the article? In effect, removing every single change everyone else had been making for weeks? That's essentially

WP:OWN. You do not own this article, I do not own this article. SO don't completely remove all the changes I (and others) had been making just so you could restore what you wanted in the article. To be clear, I provided a reason for every change I made, when I removed some of the sentences you restored. They were either undue weight on a subject that was not notable, or they were from non-WP:MEDRS or RS, or they were already covered extensively in other sections. For example, I really don't think we need an entire section for the WHO's feelings on the subject when we have an entire international responses section. And if we did have a WHO-specific section, it should be more than just one citation, one source. It would need to be expanded. So I moved that content over to the international section and integrated it there. If you wanted to bring your content back in, you should have slowly integrated it, instead of just wholesale copy pasting sections like that. More specifically, I am not your copy editor. You should be integrating your changes into the article, and copy editing them. Not copy pasting your entire sandbox of the section and then leaving me to copy edit it and integrate it. That's not my job :( Some of your changes were good, a lot were things I had already reworked to be NPOV. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 17:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink please can you check again the changes I made, because I did not copy paste back an entire version of the article, and did in fact copy paste only some pieces. The sentence that you removed from the Society and culture section was not mine. AvidTyper (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I meant the international policy section not the article. You of course left the lead untouched. But with regards to the International policies section, you did remove the edits I and others had made to it, and restored a former version of that section, without any edit explanations and without any notice on this talk page. Here is the diff where you added back in the prior version of that International policies section, removing all the edits I (and others) had made to it. Here is the diff where you removed the modified versions I had written. It looks like it may have been an accident while you restructured the article. I will emphasize that other articles do not have specific "X history" and "Y history" sections. And that we may have to integrate all the different aspects into one history section with subheadings at some later date. But overall my point is, please don't just restore large parts of the article like that without getting consensus. Of course, be bold, but prepare to be reverted and for me to escalate it. My point is, this is the type of thing that was so problematic about the prior editor, and it's why those other users opened a sockpuppet investigation on you. Large-scale reverts, POV-pushing, etc. I had made all those minor edits to bring that international policy section to NPOV. It still has a lot of POV issues. But I will deal with them at a later date when I have time. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok, I overlooked the modified versions you had written. My intention was to split the research content from policy and regulations. I will try to be more careful next time. AvidTyper (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper why did you remove the POV notice? there is no consensus that this article has been made truly NPOV, indeed I literally just said there were more things I was going to fix directly above this--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I thought we resolved the issues. Please do fix any other issues as time permits. Good night! AvidTyper (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thucydides411, you deleted a few sentences in the funding section, based on missing reference from the sources provided. It would be better if you append the ^{[citation needed]} tag instead of deleting content. It would also be good for you to add content, such as the examples you mentioned in your edit summary, instead of deleting content. Thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You're adding unsourced claims, and then criticizing me for removing them.

PREDICT is primarily known for collecting viral samples from wildlife, not for gain-of-function research. If you're just trying to illustrate gain-of-function research, there are much more famous studies you should describe (such as the avian influenza study). Why are you instead including unsourced material about a program that appears to have little to do with gain-of-function research? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PREDICT funded partners which both collected viral samples from wildlife and performed gain-of-function experiments on them. If you feel there is content that needs better sourcing, then instead of deleting content, it would be better to clarify sources. This is a new article and there is a lot that can be improved. Besides for PREDICT, there are other funding programs we can add, and sources to reference for their activities. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There's currently no sourcing for your claims, as far as I can tell. You're saying that partners that worked with PREDICT did gain-of-function research. Was that research funded by PREDICT?

But more importantly, why is PREDICT being used as an example here, when there are much more famous examples? Is it because conspiracy theorists have tried to tie PREDICT to the coronavirus pandemic? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are in fact both primary and secondary sources, which I will add to the article. Please see

WP:NOTPERFECT and give the time required for editors to improve and expand this article instead of deleting content. To answer your question, PREDICT was by far the largest single funding program for GoF research, but not the only one, as you correctly state (please contribute to the article by adding any others you may know). ScrupulousScribe (talk

) 11:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are unacceptable. I find your claim that PREDICT was the largest program for gain-of-function research dubious. Again, why are you using PREDICT to illustrate this research? Why not much more famous gain-of-function studies? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You asked me why I included PREDICT, and I answered, saying they are the largest fund ($200m). I also clarified with you that its not a program dedicated entirely to GoF research, but that it includes it. You will notice also that so far I've added only the Peter Rottier paper into the History section, which was the first notable publication, and I will add more, as we improve and expand the article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that 200 million USD for gain-of-function research? As I understand it, PREDICT funding went overwhelmingly to sample collection and virus characterization. I don't know if any funding went to gain-of-function research. I know this is a common claim of conspiracy theorists online, and there may have been some funding for gain-of-function research in PREDICT (though I've never seen any reliable source that discusses it), but that appears not to be anywhere near its main focus. You're giving PREDICT as an example of gain-of-function research, and that's currently entirely unsourced. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you here to help build an encyclopedic entry on this important field of medical research, or dispel conspiracy theories that may be associated with it? So far, you have yet to add any content, and have instead deleted content, just like you deleted important content from other pages I created, without sufficient reason. Gain of function research is usually conducted as part of larger projects which draw funds from multiple sources and PREDICT is just one of them (like this source says). Please help improve and expand the article instead of deleting content. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of building an encyclopedic entry is removing unsourced content and original research. What part of the study you linked was funded by PREDICT? How much of PREDICT's funding (if any) went to gain-of-function research? You still have not provided any sources that say that PREDICT funded gain-of-function research. I'm removing this content. If you find good sourcing, then please come back to the talk page to discuss it before adding the content about PREDICT back in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The source details a GoF study that was funded by PREDICT. You can read more about it here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with how scientific funding works, but one paper can involve different research projects funded by different grants. From that funding statement, it's unclear what research in the study was funded through PREDICT. But this is a case in which

WP:PRIMARY is highly relevant. Wikipedia policy does not allow editors to go digging through primary sources to determine answers to questions like this. -Thucydides411 (talk

) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GoF research is a very narrow field and funding is usually provided as part of a larger project with a network of partners undertaking different parts of it. The NIH is obviously the largest funding provider of medical research in the general, and PREDICT is mentioned in that source, for a project undertaken by two partners. There are other sources that talk about PREDICT and GoF studies, but its not the main topic of this article, as this conversation would seem to indicate. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, any claims about PREDICT funding gain-of-function research would need secondary sourcing. To be included in this article,

due weight would also have to be considered. -Thucydides411 (talk

) 15:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes so in particular, I think the sections on various symposia etc. are probably

WP:UNDUE. Likewise with some of the experiments listed in extreme detail. They may have a very small number of mentions in MEDRS. The exception of course would be Fouchier, Kaowoka, and the chimeric viruses from the Chen lab. Those got lots and lots of coverage. But otherwise I think you're right, Novem Linguae, this article has a big ol' fat WP:UNDUE problem. We should probably get some evidence in here to support that from MEDRS, of course. Depicting the consensus. But I would say while there is split among scientists about whether or not GOF is a good idea about some viruses, there is not as much focus on certain particulars as there is in this article. Like the individual minutiae about different countries' policies or regulatory processes, is really not heavily covered anywhere in MEDRS or regular RS.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 15:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically, there are two camps that are actually pretty accurately described here, re: pro GOF as already heavily regulated, and anti GOF saying it should be restricted more heavily than it already is. Lots of scientists are on both sides, but everybody pretty much agrees that the vast majority of GOF research is safe, with a few notable exceptions. Interestingly, the more media coverage an experiment gets, the more controversial it tends to be among scientists as well. We are not immune from the influence of the public! Far from it. People dig in their heels when something gains popular attention, and both sides become more certain in their views. This is sort of a microcosm of what we've seen happen in american politics as news coverage of micro-controversies has increased steadily. But safe to say, scientists are fallible, but the consensus is still quite stable in favor of GOF-research in general being a safe thing. You can kind of see this in the Nature-published debates between Paul Duprex and Marc Lipsitch (et al.)[1]--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, thanks for the insights, and thanks for your edits today removing some of the WP:UNDUE. Yeah, this article is about as bad as it comes for WP:UNDUE. We could hypothetically create a super-heading called "controversy" and put every current section underneath it, which is a red flag for how negative the tone is. I think a good path forward will be to add sections to the top of the article describing how gain of function research works, what its uses are, and what mainstream science thinks about the practice. And I think that most of the current sections need major condensing, so that the concern about GoF is proportional to how concerned scientists are about it. Sounds like scientists are slightly concerned about some areas of it, but by no means should these concerns make up 95% of the article's text. (The only reason it's not 100% of the article's text is because you re-wrote the lead, so thank you for that.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUE

in this article.

I would suggest a number of improvements, as follows:

• Clarify the second sentence of the second paragraph, as it's not faithful to the source. To my knowledge, GoFR’s practical application to vaccine development is more for maximising yield, and that’s more of a production thing than a development thing.

• Clarify the first sentence of the third paragraph, as though it is faithful to that source, DURC isn’t limited just to select agents. Technically, one can design GoFRoC experiments with salmonella.

• Add Menachery et al paper on SHC014 to list of GoFR experiments, as it is the second most prototypical example after the Kawooka/Fouchier work with H5N1 influenza virus [4] [5].

We should also create a "GoFR methods" section above "GoFR experiments" to differentiate passaging from editing techniques. CutePeach (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I can give you one major example of the connection between GoFR and vaccine research. There are many more but here is the first. The ebola vaccine (

sequelae.^[10][11][12]

As I said, I know of many more examples, but here is the first.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That is all good, but the current second sentence of the second paragraph relates more to the metagenomics work some people are doing. We need to edit that sentence to bring it in line with the source it references, or replace it with your examples. CutePeach (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Metagenomics refers to the study of an overall population of organisms' genomes in order to understand the ecology of that population. While related, that is not at all the process described by that sentence.

Here is what the sentence says:

In vaccine development, gain-of-function research is conducted in the hope of gaining a head start on a virus and being able to develop a vaccine or therapeutic before it emerges.

and here is what the citation says (referring to the Fouchier and Kawaoka H5N1 studies in ferrets):^[13]

Advocates of these studies/publications argued that they would improve surveillance of H5N1 in nature (facilitating early identification of, and thus better response to, the emergence of potential pandemic strains) and facilitate development of vaccines that might be needed to protect against pandemic strains of the virus.

Now, could you please describe to me what you think is inaccurate about that paraphrasing/summary?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: what does it say in the sentence directly after the one you highlited so nicely in green. Btw, do you agree on my other bullet points above? CutePeach (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

unduly so.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 13:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything about consensus? I don’t think this is controversial edit and would be happy to do in myself, but I thought the purpose of these talk pages is for us to discuss our edits and collaborate. Can you explain why it would be undue to include that sentence on such an important matter in the lead of the article when we have a statement citing the sentence directly before it? Do you agree with my other bullet points above or are we only going to talk about the things we disagree on? CutePeach (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

One hill at a time.

• Re: the SHC014 article, I disagree with its inclusion, given that it has almost no coverage as a "controversial experiment" outside of
  WP:RSes
  . And I had a very hard time finding coverage of that experiment outside of fringe blog posts.

• Re: the DURC sentence and select agents, that is what has been the subject of the moratorium, it's what is implicated in the most notable experiments. Non-select agents don't have as much coverage in
  WP:RSes
  re: DURC. We need to differentiate the "gain of function" research that is

1. "make cancer cells replicate more quickly in a petri dish"
2. "the concept of GoFR in bioethics"
3. "GoFR bioweapons and mad scientists."

The third one is the massive emphasis in this article. One of these has zero danger for the public (#1), the 3rd clearly does, but has very little coverage in RSes. #1 has very little coverage in RSes, #2 has lots of coverage, and #3 has lots of

Raccaniello wasn't a part of the discussion in the source, and he does not represent all members of SfS any more than Lipsitch represents all people who are skeptical of GoFR. This is a straw man. It doesn't matter what happened on Twitter between whom, when the source describes this climate for us in a useful way among several people on both sides of these organizations. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

here's the parts I'm talking about:

Additionally, the media feels the need to frame the debate as a fight, which is also counterproductive and harmful, and is doing little to help the public to understand the key issues.

There has hardly been a real debate. I have participated in several public meetings, but opposition against GOF research has been minimal in most of these cases. Instead of a real debate, we have seen the sharing of tweets and one-liners that are copied by press outlets in search of sensation. The lay press and some scientific journals have blindly placed opinion pieces without checking the facts or seeking alternative opinions. The problem here is that much of the press and the public are interested in sensational news but are less interested in careful explanations of the (boring) facts related to the regulatory frameworks that are in place.

If the discussion has been flawed, it is because the pros and cons of the work have both been slightly exaggerated, the tone of the discussion too personalized and emotional

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

as I said, I couldn't think of a better summary of this content (though I thought about it for the better part of an hour), so if you can I'd love to hear it and see it put it in the article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/F30-AI149928-02?fbclid=IwAR0GpjoUpEzz6NqiAZA2Q8tenZPNlVy0hXFLeD9csgvu-wRtx7fY-tdu7Ko "I will completely characterize the ability of mutations to the Lassa virus entry protein to mediate antibody escape from three human monoclonal antibodies currently undergoing therapeutic development. These complete maps of antibody resistance will determine from which antibody it is most difficult for the virus to escape and help evaluate and refine potential antibody immunotherapies." This grant is currently active. Isn't this the definition of GOF? Here is a perma-URL to the general subject https://www.facebook.com/groups/1154470481693356 You need not log on to FB. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @

notability

or worthiness of inclusion. So we should not put it in the article. If you can find a reliable source that describes this grant and its projects as noteworthy or special or newsworthy in some way, then maybe it should be included. But even then, it should be multiple WP:RSes. And it should be covered in the proportion that scientists are talking about it. Which, personally, I have to tell you there are multiple lab groups all over the world conducting this exact type of research. This single example is not special.

As an aside, I have to tell you, as someone who generated "escape mutants" against Lassa and Hanta in the lab in grad school, it is not dangerous. I know that term probably sounds really scary, but all it means is that this single antibody no longer able to bind the virus. The virus itself generates these exact mutants many millions of times every hour inside the host. So what we are doing in the lab is just isolating those mutants and studying them, to see how to make better vaccines or therapeutics. We are looking, based on where those antibodies are binding and how easy it is for the virus to get out of that binding, if it is possible to make a cocktail of antibodies that cannot be "escaped." We're just taking what the virus does in nature, and removing all the variables and the complexity, to study it.

Viruses are always in an arms race with antibodies. Your body is making better and better antibodies, and the virus is mutating to avoid those antibodies. Doing this in the lab on a much smaller scale with fewer antibodies means we can observe this process and figure out how to make better drugs and vaccines so that the virus can't mutate out of them. Escape mutants of individual antibodies are fundamentally less dangerous than what happens in nature, because this is what the virus naturally does, on a much larger scale, every minute of infecting humans or other animals in the wild.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

An NIH grant application is a reliable source. BTW, where is this work on Lassa and Hanta? I only see your Zika publications. Charles Juvon (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A grant is a

WP:PRIMARY source, hence not useable to determine whether something is significant. It can be used for more details if and only if there are secondary sources reporting on it RandomCanadian (talk / contribs

) 13:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian is right, a grant is a primary source, reliable for matters of fact but not for establishing notability. Here is the Hanta paper^[1] (which formed 1/3 of my dissertation) and the Arenavirus stuff (viruses related to and including Lassa, which were collaborations with another member of my lab).^[2][3] You can find all my publications on my Google scholar page.^[4]

We actually generated, isolated, and characterized escape mutants of chimeric versions of these viruses (made with

vesicular stomatitis virus

(VSV), which is basically inert in humans). We did it this way because it's easier (these VSV chimeras are easier to visualize and stain in the lab and can be used at BSL2). But we also did neutralization experiments at BSL3 (and 4) with the true full natural viruses, and this very likely created escape mutants, just like any time you let a virus replicate with an antibody present, we just didn't isolate and characterize them. We only wanted to make sure the antibodies were capable of neutralizing.

And, as a result of that work, and showing that the antibodies neutralize in different places,

Zmapp against Ebola Zaire

. Because while the virus may be able to mutate out of one antibody's binding, the more unique antibodies you add into a cocktail, in high enough amounts, the harder it gets for the virus. Eventually, mutating out of one antibody's binding makes you more susceptible to others, and so a cocktail approach like this can actually be curative.

Interestingly enough, the human body gets worse and worse as we age at making many multiple different antibodies during an infection, and "prunes" down to one or just a few similar antibody specificities.[5] It's really complicated but suffice it to say, the way the immune system works is not very well built for launching multiple antibodies all at high levels simultaneously, it instead often defaults to very few "clones." But it's also an issue because it takes so long (14-21 days) for the body to produce these antibodies to a useful extent. To the body, each new virus is completely new and needs a new "R&D effort". We can take what other immune systems have already figured out about the virus (these antibodies) and give them to people right at the beginning of infection, skipping those 14-21 days, so the virus never has a chance to get started. And this also means saving lives, because a lot of people die in those 14-21 days before the immune system starts to win.^[6] So the cocktail approach can have the best of all worlds, and help by arming people who have not yet generated their own antibodies. So these escape mutants are just the beginning of a long and thorough process that ends with saving lives. Here is some further reading on antibody cocktails.^{[7][8][9][10][11]}--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Quibbles: a bit absurd to talk about a treatment that doesn't exist as being "very effective". Also, ZMapp was hardly a "very effective" treatment. Heck, it's been retired. Probably better than nothing, but half the patients who took it died anyway.

And Regeneron's REGN-COV2 bites; it only improved mortality a paltry 6% in the biggest study. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the 50% figure for ZMapp, but I don't think it's right, when Zaire Ebola's mortality rate is already 30-50%. When you're talking about ebola patients, 22% mortality in those who took ZMapp versus 37% in those who took placebo is actually pretty darn good.^[12] Oh, are you talking about the head to head trial in 2018?^[13] Well, I mean when the overall case fatality rate of that outbreak was 81% in untreated people, 50% is actually pretty good.^[14] MAb114 (35%) and REGN-EB3 (33%) (a new generation of the anti-ZEBOV mAb cocktail, similar to ZMapp) were still better, though. It's great that better therapeutics are being developed all the time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It was 49%, vs 75%, so possibly about 1/3 less mortality. (From the Wired source in our article on it.) Agreed; progress is good. Still, it's a long way from "pretty good" to "very effective". And ignoring/suppressing "very effective" existing therapeutics in favor of potentially better ones is a great evil, which the jamaletter barely hints at. (Not claiming you're part of the effort.) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI: I have just requested clarification on whether this article is affected by the Arbitration Committee decision on COVID-19. You can see the relevant request and make comments in the section over at the ArbCom Requests page. Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

{{

We have http://www.scientistsforscience.org being used as if it's a MEDRS source despite the badly soiled reputations of some signatories, but http://jamaletter.com, without such problems, is effaced. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

For statements of opinion by a group of people, a letter that they signed saying those things, especially when also covered by secondary sources (which this is), is appropriate. I cannot find any WP:RSes that cover the jama letter you linked.

Re: your quote, I paraphrased the NPR article. If you have a problem with the specific paraphrase "an overall exemplary worldwide record of lab safety over the last several decades" then why don't we work together on a rephrasing. I admit that was a very broad paraphrase that I did, based on a combination of the letter and the NPR article. However, that does not change that this is a content dispute, not a conduct one. Your admin tag is probably unnecessary.

How do you feel about: "One of the group's founding members, University of Pittsburgh virologist W. Paul Duprex, has argued (ca. 2014) that the then-recent few events were exceptions to an overall good record of lab safety." Just a more mild paraphrase.

Here's what the NPR article says: [12]

There are multiple events that have come together in a rather unusual convergence," says Paul Duprex, a microbiologist at Boston University. He sees the recent reports of lab mistakes as exceptions — they don't mean you should shut down basic science that's essential to protecting public health, he says.

How would you paraphrase that same sentiment? Let's find which parts we agree on.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Re paraphrase: Sounds good. I hadn't identified who had made the change, and I've pulled the tag. (I was assuming you left all the space between your paragraphs because you welcome interspersed comments. Nope, I see.) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

All good :) I just find it confusing to have interspersed stuff, and I leave spaces between my paragraphs to separate thoughts. Sorry if that was confusing in any way.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

:-). (I vaguely recall that there's evidence that there likely have been some major lab leaks in the past. TBH, I don't recall the quality of the evidence, however. Sound familiar? If not, do ignore me 'till I provide sources. :-) ) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

https://pubmed.gov/26286690 is one.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to how we paraphrase what someone said. This entire paraphrase is with attribution, as in "X said Y." When we do that, it isn't necessary or even relevant to discuss the accuracy of Y. Only the notability/due weight of including X's thoughts. and given the NPR coverage, it's pretty hard to argue that what Duprex said isn't important.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)