[llamaimperative]

> It means purposely engineering pandemic-caliber viruses

This is not true.

GoF includes any research that amplifies specific characteristics. Transmissibility or severity of infection are just two of those possible dimensions.

For example, the research that enables us to produce insulin (and tons of other biologic medicines) with E. coli is GoF.

I lean on the side of banning GoF that's designed to increase transmissibility of a contagion, but that is indeed just a subset of GoF generally.

[danenania]

Fair enough that it has that meaning more generally in biology. My point is 100% of the policy discussions about it are referring to that particular subset—no one means producing insulin when they talk about the risks of GoF.

[llamaimperative]

Yes but this is what causes confusion when scientists push back against proposed bans which seems like a legitimately insane and evil position to take.

We can sharpen the language and say "ban GoF research that increases transmissibility of infectious disease", for example.

[tripletao]

I think the best term of art is ePPP (enhanced potential pandemic pathogens), which clearly limits that scope. Academics use that reasonably often, though politicians and the general public unfortunately don't yet.

There's also GOFROC (gain of function research of concern). That's better than just GOF, but rather vague.

[llamaimperative]

This is useful! Thank you for chiming in :)