[DiogenesKynikos]

Fauci's statement was correct: the NIH does not fund gain-of-function research, according to the definition that has been drawn up to regulate such research.

You seem to think that any manipulation of a virus is "gain-of-function." The technical term that regulators use of "gain of function of concern." There's a specific definition of that term that was drawn up in the 2010s, and that's what NIH applies.

[trhway]

yes, that old "i didn't have s-x with that woman". Nobody cares for that specific definition. CRISP-ering human receptor binding protein onto a non-human coronavirus in such a way that the resulting virus starts to infect and kill human cells is a "gain of function", plain and simple. And thus Fauci lied. It was his professional duty to add to his answer that the gain of function they funded in Wuhan that the Congress was asking him about isn't fitting whatever narrow technical definition NIH uses. So, even if to take your position, it would mean that Fauci lied by omission.

And btw https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

" “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature."

So, even NIH defintion does cover Wuhan. So, Fauci lied. Blatantly. Even by NIH defintion.

And this

https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/documents/gain-of-function.pd...

"Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease,"

The last link is exactly that 2014 document based on which the gain of function research was moved from US to in particular Wuhan. And Fauci was instrumental in that move.

Edit: to the commenters below who cares so much about the definition that Fauci uses - please do tell what is that magical definition which doesn't match even the NIH documents (see the links above).

[DiogenesKynikos]

That definition exists because nearly all virology involves modification of viruses. You have to have a definition of what type of research is concerning, or else it's just up to whatever some showboating congressman and his ignorant followers think. There was an entire, highly public, year-long process in the 2010s to define what "gain of function" should mean for the purpose of US-government-funded research. That's the definition Fauci uses.

> It was his professional duty to add to his answer that the gain of function they funded in Wuhan that the Congress was asking him about isn't fitting whatever narrow technical definition NIH uses.

No, it isn't. You would think a Senator in charge of regulating the NIH would ask one of his aides to explain to him before the session what "gain of function" means.

[watwut]

Definition matters and meaning of words matters.

> yes, that old "i didn't have s-x with that woman".

Since you are alluding to Clinton impeachment, I would say people who voted for Trump or defend him lost any benefit of doubt they ever cared about respectability, morality or ethics of that situation. Or lying for that matter.