[galangalalgol]

Whatvare the arguments for gain of function research? Is there any reason to think the mutations gained as a virus adapts to mice with human lung tissue will resemble the ones it makes when it crosses in the wild? Or is it kind of like the old giant nuke plants, a way to peace-wash war tech?

Edit: Vouching for the reply wasn't enough to resurrect it. It was a claim with no support other than an appeal to authority, but that means you reply to it with a counter not bury it. It sidestepped the question of whether adapting an animal virus to humans has sufficient gain for the risk.

[criticalmass2]

The term “gain of function” is used by different people in different ways. It is a broad category of research and the misguided attempts to categorize it as dangerous in one broad stroke are not helpful. To quote Dr. Fauci:

"If all gain-of-function stops, you will have no vaccines for flu. You will have no vaccines for any of the other diseases, because all of that manipulates a virus or a pathogen to gain a certain function to be able to make a vaccine."

[hgsgm]

I love me a flu vaccine. But if Covid-19 was the cost, I'm not sure it's worth it.

Also Fauci played a bit of Motte&Baily the other way, by defending ALL GoF research with that argument.

People opposed to gain of function are specifically opposed to attempts to make viruses more communicable or more dangerous

[xyzzy123]

This seems disingenuous, afaik the contributions of GoF work (that enhances transmissibility, pathogenicity or immune escape of a virus) to widely deployed vaccines is minimal or zero.

EDIT: if downvoter(s) could provide specific examples of how GoF experiments have materially contributed to the development of ANY deployed vaccine I would be grateful (and update my position). For "the vaccines stop if GoF stops" to be true, it should be possible to name at least one vaccine which critically relied on GoF research, right?