Jump to content

Gain-of-function research: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Restored revision 1022864720 by Novem Linguae (talk): Likely block evasion
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Field of medical research}}
{{short description|Field of medical research}}
'''Gain of function research''' (GoFR) refers to experiments involving the [[Serial passage|serial passaging]] of [[microorganisms]] [[in vitro]] and [[in vivo]] aimed at affecting [[gain of function mutation]]s.<ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/</ref> These experiments are designed to place positive [[Evolutionary pressure|selective pressure]] on the microorganisms to effect mutations that would increase their [[pathogenicity]], [[Transmission (medicine)|transmissibility]], and [[antigenicity]]. Experiments can also be designed to expand the [[host tropism]] of a pathogen to new host species or organ tissues.
'''Gain of function research''' (GoFR) is a field of [[medical research]] focused on the [[Serial passage|serial passaging]] of [[microorganisms]] [[in vitro]] and [[in vivo]]. This places positive [[Evolutionary pressure|selective pressure]] on the microorganisms to effect mutations that would increase their [[pathogenicity]], [[Transmission (medicine)|transmissibility]], and [[antigenicity]]. These studies can also expand the [[host tropism]] of a pathogen to new host species or organ tissue. This research is intended to reveal targets to better predict [[emerging infectious disease]]s and to develop [[vaccines]] and [[therapeutics]].


In [[pathogenesis]] and [[zoonosis]] research, gain of gunction experiments are designed to reveal targets to better predict [[Pandemic|pandemics]]s with the intention to develop [[vaccines]] and [[therapeutics]].<ref name="Selgelid 2016">{{cite journal | last=Selgelid | first=Michael J. | title=Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis | journal=Science and Engineering Ethics | volume=22 | issue=4 | date=2016-07-06 | pages=923–964 | pmid=27502512 | doi=10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1 | pmc=4996883 }}</ref> In [[virology]], [[epidemiology]] and [[immunology]] research, gain of function experiments are conducted in the hope of gaining a head start on a novel virus or a novel strain of a known virus and being able to develop a vaccine or therapeutic before it emerges.<ref name="Selgelid 2016"/> In [[Vaccine#Production|vaccine production]], gain of function research is used to increase the yield of viral strains in cell culture.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9148</ref>
In [[virology]], gain-of-function research is employed with the intention of better understanding current and future [[Pandemic|pandemics]].<ref name="Selgelid 2016">{{cite journal | last=Selgelid | first=Michael J. | title=Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis | journal=Science and Engineering Ethics | volume=22 | issue=4 | date=2016-07-06 | pages=923–964 | pmid=27502512 | doi=10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1 | pmc=4996883 }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Selgelid 2016" />


== History ==
As a [[Dual-use technology]], gain of function research entails [[biosafety]] and [[biosecurity]] risks, and experiments are subject to oversight by laboratory committees and government authorities.<ref>https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Pages/GainOfFunction.aspx</ref><ref>https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Gain_of_Function/EASAC_GOF_Web_complete_centred.pdf</ref> Significant debate has taken place in the scientific community on how to assess risk-benefit of gain of function research, and how to engage the public in deliberations for [[policy making]].<ref>https://www.nap.edu/read/21666/chapter/5#39</ref><ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4394177/</ref> As of January 2020, the US government is reportedly revisiting the rules for gain of function research, and its disclosure to the public on the approval process for such expriments.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00210-5</ref>
{{also|CRISPR}}{{Cleanup section|reason=[[WP:PROSELINE]]|date=April 2021}}

== Research history ==
=== Coronaviruses ===
==== Kuo et al ====
In February 2000, a group at the [[Utrecht University]] led by [[Peter Rottier]] published a paper on their gain-of-function studies titled "Retargeting of [[Coronavirus]] by Substitution of the Spike Glycoprotein Ectodomain: Crossing the Host Cell Species Barrier" detailing how they constructed a mutant of the coronavirus [[Murine coronavirus|mouse hepatitis virus]], replacing the [[ectodomain]] of the spike glycoprotein (S) with the highly divergent ectodomain of the S protein of [[Feline coronavirus|feline infectious peritonitis virus]]. According to the paper, "the resulting [[Chimera (virus)|chimeric virus]], designated fMHV, acquired the ability to infect [[felidae|feline]] cells and simultaneously lost the ability to infect [[murine]] cells in tissue culture".<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10627550/|pmid = 10627550|year = 2000|last1 = Kuo|first1 = L.|last2 = Godeke|first2 = G. J.|last3 = Raamsman|first3 = M. J.|last4 = Masters|first4 = P. S.|last5 = Rottier|first5 = P. J.|title = Retargeting of coronavirus by substitution of the spike glycoprotein ectodomain: Crossing the host cell species barrier|journal = Journal of Virology|volume = 74|issue = 3|pages = 1393–406|doi = 10.1128/jvi.74.3.1393-1406.2000|pmc = 111474}}</ref>
In February 2000, a group at the [[Utrecht University]] led by [[Peter Rottier]] published a paper on their gain-of-function studies titled "Retargeting of [[Coronavirus]] by Substitution of the Spike Glycoprotein Ectodomain: Crossing the Host Cell Species Barrier" detailing how they constructed a mutant of the coronavirus [[Murine coronavirus|mouse hepatitis virus]], replacing the [[ectodomain]] of the spike glycoprotein (S) with the highly divergent ectodomain of the S protein of [[Feline coronavirus|feline infectious peritonitis virus]]. According to the paper, "the resulting [[Chimera (virus)|chimeric virus]], designated fMHV, acquired the ability to infect [[felidae|feline]] cells and simultaneously lost the ability to infect [[murine]] cells in tissue culture".<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10627550/|pmid = 10627550|year = 2000|last1 = Kuo|first1 = L.|last2 = Godeke|first2 = G. J.|last3 = Raamsman|first3 = M. J.|last4 = Masters|first4 = P. S.|last5 = Rottier|first5 = P. J.|title = Retargeting of coronavirus by substitution of the spike glycoprotein ectodomain: Crossing the host cell species barrier|journal = Journal of Virology|volume = 74|issue = 3|pages = 1393–406|doi = 10.1128/jvi.74.3.1393-1406.2000|pmc = 111474}}</ref>


The [[World Health Organization]] in 2010 developed a "guidance document" for [[Dual Use Research of Concern]] (DURC) in the life sciences because "research that is intended [to] benefit, but which might easily be misapplied to do harm".<ref name="whodurc">{{cite news |title=Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) |url=https://www.who.int/csr/durc/en/ |access-date=4 February 2021 |publisher=World Health Organization}}</ref>
=== Influenza ===

==== Fouchier and Kawaoka ====
In 2011, [[Ron Fouchier]] of the [[Erasmus University Medical Center]] in the [[Erasmus University Rotterdam]] and [[Yoshihiro Kawaoka]] of the [[University of Wisconsin in Madison]] and the [[University of Tokyo]] revealed that they had had modified the deadly avian H5N1 influenza virus to spread between ferrets in separate studies. This study was a first for mammalian transmutability and sparked a debate in the scientific community about the biorisk implications of gain of function research.<ref>https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/exclusive-controversial-experiments-make-bird-flu-more-risky-poised-resume</ref>

==== Imai et al ====


In May 2012, a [[Japan]]ese group of scientists operating out of the [[University of Wisconsin]] with funding from the [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]], [[ERATO]], [[National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]] and support gifts from the [[National Institutes of Health]] and the [[Vietnam]]ese [[National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology]] published a paper in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' about airborne transmission of the H5N1 bird flu introduced via [[respiratory droplet transmission]] from one [[ferret]] to another. The group "had altered the virus’s [[amino acid]] profile, allowing it to reproduce in [[mammal lungs]], which are a bit colder than bird lungs. That small change allowed the virus to be transmitted via coughing and sneezing, and it solved the riddle of how H5N1 could become airborne in humans... (Some) members of Congress, among other critics around the world, responded to the publication of the research with alarm and condemnation." A ''[[New York Times]]'' editorial described the event as "An Engineered Doomsday."<ref name="imai12">{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature10831|title=Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets|year=2012|last1=Imai|first1=Masaki|last2=Watanabe|first2=Tokiko|last3=Hatta|first3=Masato|last4=Das|first4=Subash C. |last5=Ozawa|first5=Makoto |last6=Shinya|first6=Kyoko |last7=Zhong|first7=Gongxun |last8=Hanson |first8=Anthony |last9=Katsura|first9=Hiroaki |last10=Watanabe|first10=Shinji |last11=Li|first11=Chengjun |last12=Kawakami|first12=Eiryo |last13=Yamada|first13=Shinya |last14=Kiso|first14=Maki |last15=Suzuki|first15=Yasuo |last16=Maher|first16=Eileen A. |last17=Neumann|first17=Gabriele |last18=Kawaoka|first18=Yoshihiro |journal=Nature|volume=486|issue=7403|pages=420–428 |pmid=22722205 |pmc=3388103 |bibcode=2012Natur.486..420I}}</ref><ref name="ptdo">{{cite news |last1=Tucker |first1=Patrick |title=To Protect Ourselves From Bioweapons, We May Have to Reinvent Science Itself |url=https://www.defenseone.com/feature/bioweapons/ |publisher=Defense One |date=n.d.}}</ref>
In May 2012, a [[Japan]]ese group of scientists operating out of the [[University of Wisconsin]] with funding from the [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]], [[ERATO]], [[National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]] and support gifts from the [[National Institutes of Health]] and the [[Vietnam]]ese [[National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology]] published a paper in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' about airborne transmission of the H5N1 bird flu introduced via [[respiratory droplet transmission]] from one [[ferret]] to another. The group "had altered the virus’s [[amino acid]] profile, allowing it to reproduce in [[mammal lungs]], which are a bit colder than bird lungs. That small change allowed the virus to be transmitted via coughing and sneezing, and it solved the riddle of how H5N1 could become airborne in humans... (Some) members of Congress, among other critics around the world, responded to the publication of the research with alarm and condemnation." A ''[[New York Times]]'' editorial described the event as "An Engineered Doomsday."<ref name="imai12">{{cite journal |doi=10.1038/nature10831|title=Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets|year=2012|last1=Imai|first1=Masaki|last2=Watanabe|first2=Tokiko|last3=Hatta|first3=Masato|last4=Das|first4=Subash C. |last5=Ozawa|first5=Makoto |last6=Shinya|first6=Kyoko |last7=Zhong|first7=Gongxun |last8=Hanson |first8=Anthony |last9=Katsura|first9=Hiroaki |last10=Watanabe|first10=Shinji |last11=Li|first11=Chengjun |last12=Kawakami|first12=Eiryo |last13=Yamada|first13=Shinya |last14=Kiso|first14=Maki |last15=Suzuki|first15=Yasuo |last16=Maher|first16=Eileen A. |last17=Neumann|first17=Gabriele |last18=Kawaoka|first18=Yoshihiro |journal=Nature|volume=486|issue=7403|pages=420–428 |pmid=22722205 |pmc=3388103 |bibcode=2012Natur.486..420I}}</ref><ref name="ptdo">{{cite news |last1=Tucker |first1=Patrick |title=To Protect Ourselves From Bioweapons, We May Have to Reinvent Science Itself |url=https://www.defenseone.com/feature/bioweapons/ |publisher=Defense One |date=n.d.}}</ref>


==== Zhang et al ====
In May 2013, [[Hualan Chen]], who was then director of the [[China]]'s [[National Avian Influenza Reference Laboratory]], and colleagues successfully created a new strain of influenza virus through a gain-of-function experiment at the [[Biosafety level#Biosafety level 3|BSL3 approved]] [[Harbin Veterinary Research Institute]].<ref name="chen13">{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.1229455|title=H5N1 Hybrid Viruses Bearing 2009/H1N1 Virus Genes Transmit in Guinea Pigs by Respiratory Droplet|year=2013|last1=Zhang|first1=Y.|last2=Zhang|first2=Q.|last3=Kong|first3=H.|last4=Jiang|first4=Y.|last5=Gao|first5=Y.|last6=Deng|first6=G.|last7=Shi|first7=J.|last8=Tian|first8=G.|last9=Liu|first9=L.|last10=Liu|first10=J.|last11=Guan|first11=Y.|last12=Bu|first12=Z.|last13=Chen|first13=H.|journal=Science|volume=340|issue=6139|pages=1459–1463|pmid=23641061|bibcode=2013Sci...340.1459Z|s2cid=206544849}}</ref> The Chinese scientists "deliberately mixed the [[H5N1]] bird-flu virus, which is highly lethal [to birds] but not easily transmitted between [humans], with a 2009 strain of [[H1N1]] flu virus, which is very infectious to humans."<ref name="appalling" /> This event caused consternation in European biotech circles, as Professor [[Simon Wain-Hobson]] of the [[Pasteur Institute]] the Chinese scientists "haven’t been thinking clearly about what they are doing. It’s very worrying... The virological basis of this work is not strong. It is of no use for vaccine development and the benefit in terms of surveillance for new flu viruses is oversold," while [[Lord May of Oxford]] said: "The record of containment in labs like this is not reassuring. They are taking it upon themselves to create human-to-human transmission of very dangerous viruses. It’s appallingly irresponsible."<ref name="appalling">{{cite news |last1=Connor |first1=Steve |title='Appalling irresponsibility': Senior scientists attack Chinese researchers for creating new strains of influenza virus in veterinary laboratory |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/appalling-irresponsibility-senior-scientists-attack-chinese-researchers-creating-new-strains-influenza-virus-veterinary-laboratory-8601658.html |work=The Independent |date=2 May 2013}}</ref>
In May 2013, [[Hualan Chen]], who was then director of the [[China]]'s [[National Avian Influenza Reference Laboratory]], and colleagues successfully created a new strain of influenza virus through a gain-of-function experiment at the [[Biosafety level#Biosafety level 3|BSL3 approved]] [[Harbin Veterinary Research Institute]].<ref name="chen13">{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.1229455|title=H5N1 Hybrid Viruses Bearing 2009/H1N1 Virus Genes Transmit in Guinea Pigs by Respiratory Droplet|year=2013|last1=Zhang|first1=Y.|last2=Zhang|first2=Q.|last3=Kong|first3=H.|last4=Jiang|first4=Y.|last5=Gao|first5=Y.|last6=Deng|first6=G.|last7=Shi|first7=J.|last8=Tian|first8=G.|last9=Liu|first9=L.|last10=Liu|first10=J.|last11=Guan|first11=Y.|last12=Bu|first12=Z.|last13=Chen|first13=H.|journal=Science|volume=340|issue=6139|pages=1459–1463|pmid=23641061|bibcode=2013Sci...340.1459Z|s2cid=206544849}}</ref> The Chinese scientists "deliberately mixed the [[H5N1]] bird-flu virus, which is highly lethal [to birds] but not easily transmitted between [humans], with a 2009 strain of [[H1N1]] flu virus, which is very infectious to humans."<ref name="appalling" /> This event caused consternation in European biotech circles, as Professor [[Simon Wain-Hobson]] of the [[Pasteur Institute]] the Chinese scientists "haven’t been thinking clearly about what they are doing. It’s very worrying... The virological basis of this work is not strong. It is of no use for vaccine development and the benefit in terms of surveillance for new flu viruses is oversold," while [[Lord May of Oxford]] said: "The record of containment in labs like this is not reassuring. They are taking it upon themselves to create human-to-human transmission of very dangerous viruses. It’s appallingly irresponsible."<ref name="appalling">{{cite news |last1=Connor |first1=Steve |title='Appalling irresponsibility': Senior scientists attack Chinese researchers for creating new strains of influenza virus in veterinary laboratory |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/appalling-irresponsibility-senior-scientists-attack-chinese-researchers-creating-new-strains-influenza-virus-veterinary-laboratory-8601658.html |work=The Independent |date=2 May 2013}}</ref>


In May 2014, the [[Bundestag]] was presented a report written by the [[National Ethics Council]] on proposed guidance for governance of GoFR.<ref name="vfsumm">{{cite news|date=12 December 2014|title=SUMMARY REPORT DUAL USE RESEARCH ON MICROBES: Biosafety, Biosecurity, Responsibility|publisher=Volkswagen Foundation|url=https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/sites/default/files/downloads/Summary_Report_HS_Dual_Use_Research_on_Microbes.pdf}}</ref> At the time, some in Germany were concerned over "GoFR pathogenic pandemic microbes raging out of control".<ref name=vfsumm/> Epidemiologist [[Marc Lipsitch]] used "data of past biosafety breaches to calculate that" they occur with a probability "of 0.01 to 0.1 percent per lab per year."<ref name=vfsumm/>
== Gain of function research of concern ==


In October 2014, [[The White House]] under the [[Obama administration]] instituted a moratorium on gain-of-function research into [[influenza]], [[MERS]], and [[SARS]], launched inquiries from the [[Office of Science and Technology Policy]] (OSTP); the [[National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity]] (NSABB); and the symposia by [[National Research Council (United States)|National Research Council]] (NRC),<ref name="jaobama">{{cite news |last1=Akst |first1=Jef |title=Moratorium on Gain-of-Function Research |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/moratorium-on-gain-of-function-research-36564 |publisher=The Scientist |date=21 October 2014}}</ref> and paused funding for all projects for three years.<ref name="hhso17">{{cite news |title=U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses |url=http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf |agency=Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |date=17 October 2014}}</ref><ref name="cutobama">{{cite news |last1=McNeil |first1=Donald G. Jr. |title=White House to Cut Funding for Risky Biological Study |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/white-house-to-cut-funding-for-risky-biological-study.html |newspaper=The New York Times Company |date=17 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Kaiser|first1=Jocelyn|last2=Malakoff|first2=David|title=U.S. halts funding for new risky virus studies, calls for voluntary moratorium|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/us-halts-funding-new-risky-virus-studies-calls-voluntary-moratorium|access-date=28 July 2016|publisher=Science|date=17 October 2014}}</ref><ref name="imperiale16">{{cite journal|url= |doi=10.1128/mSphere.00069-16|title=Zika Virus Focuses the Gain-of-Function Debate|year=2016|last1=Imperiale|first1=Michael J.|last2=Casadevall|first2=Arturo|journal=mSphere|volume=1|issue=2|pmid=27303723|pmc=4894681}}</ref> At least 18 GoFR projects were affected, "including work that had been continued ... in the labs of Fouchier and Kawaoka."<ref name=vfsumm/>
Significant debate has taken place in the scientific community on how to assess risk-benefit of gain of function research, and how to engage the public in deliberations for policymaking. These concerns encompass [[biosafety]], relating to the accidental release of a pathogen into the population, [[biosecurity]] relating to the intentional release of a pathogen into the population, and [[bioethics]], the principles of biorisk management and research review procedures.<ref>https://link.springer.com/protocol/10.1007/978-1-4939-8678-1_28</ref>


In December 2014, [[Veronique Kiermer]] (at the time on the editorial board of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'') discussed the considerations at her place of employment, that go into the publication of DURC. She came to the conclusion that "the journal's editorial and review boards should not (and could not) be the only gatekeepers who decide which research results should be published, either fully or redacted, 'because it is way too late in the process of GoFR.'"<ref name=vfsumm/>
In December 2014, [[Veronique Kiermer]] (at the time on the editorial board of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'') discussed the considerations at her place of employment, that go into the publication of DURC. She came to the conclusion that "the journal's editorial and review boards should not (and could not) be the only gatekeepers who decide which research results should be published, either fully or redacted, 'because it is way too late in the process of GoFR.'"<ref name=vfsumm/>

In December 2014, the [[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine|National Research Council]] and the [[Institute of Medicine]] organized a two-day symposium to discuss the potential risks and benefits of Gain-of-Function Research. The event was attended by scientists from around the world, including [[George F. Gao|George Gao]], [[Gabriel Leung]] and [[Michael Selgelid]], [[Baruch Fischhoff]], [[Alta Charo]], [[Harvey V. Fineberg|Harvey Fineberg]], [[Jonathan D. Moreno|Jonathan Moreno]], [[Ralph Cicerone]], [[Margaret Hamburg]], [[Jo Handelsman]], [[Samuel L. Stanley|Samuel Stanley]], [[Kenneth Berns]], [[Ralph Baric]], [[Robert A. Lamb|Robert Lamb]], [[Silja Vöneky]], [[Keiji Fukuda]], [[David Relman]], and [[Marc Lipsitch]].<ref>https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/gain-of-function-research-a-symposium</ref> One day later, the US government granted exceptions to the GoFR moratorium to seven out of 18 research projects that had been affected.<ref name=vfsumm/>


In 2016, [[synthetic virology]] scientists and [[bioethics]] experts again raised concerns with the [[dual-use]] of gain-of-function research.<ref name="Selgelid 2016" /><ref name=imperiale16/>
In 2016, [[synthetic virology]] scientists and [[bioethics]] experts again raised concerns with the [[dual-use]] of gain-of-function research.<ref name="Selgelid 2016" /><ref name=imperiale16/>


By March 2016 the second symposium launched by the Obama administration reported that funding for gain-of-function research was provided by government agencies, pharmaceutical research companies, venture capital funds, colleges and universities, non-profit research institutions, foundations, and charities.<ref name="NAP">{{cite book|url=https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/GOF_symposium_summary_March_2016.pdf|title=Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of the Second Symposium|date= March 2016|isbn= 9780309440776|doi=10.17226/23484|pmid=27403489|access-date=January 29, 2021|editor1-last=Millett|editor1-first=Piers|editor2-first=Jo|editor2-last=Husbands|editor3-first=Frances|editor3-last=Sharples|editor4-first=Audrey|editor4-last=Thevenon|last1=Board On Life|first1=Sciences|author2=Division on Earth Life Studies|author3=Board on Health Sciences Policy|last4=Health Medicine|first4=Division|last5=Committee On Science|first5=Technology|last6=Policy Global|first6=Affairs|last7=National Academies Of Sciences|first7=Engineering}}</ref>
== Academic symposiums ==

=== Herrenhausen Symposium ===
In December 2014, a three-day symposium was organized by the [[Volkswagen Foundation]] with the [[Max Planck Society]] at [[Hanover, Germany]].<ref>https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/node/1751</ref> Concerns were "raised that the GoFR strains themselves were a threat to public health in two ways: First, because the knowledge of how to tweak an influenza virus into a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) could be used by bioterrorists or for biological warfare purposes. Second, because the tweaked viruses could escape (or could be stolen) from the laboratory and could cause a pandemic."<ref name="vfsumm"/>

[[Volker Stollorz]] maintained at the symposium that "the public knows that with the ever-increasing experimental power and the growing diversity of scientific disciplines nobody can claim to grasp precisely what may happen." Said Stollorz: "Researchers who want to perform experiments creating man-made, new, more virulent, and transmissible microbial life forms not existing in nature have to first and foremost acknowledge the existence of the society they experiment in." A reporter at the forum characterized the problem thusly: "Societies need time to understand and digest the new science because the regulation has to adapt constantly to the new realities made possible by scientists."<ref name=vfsumm/>

=== Gain-of-Function Research A Symposium ===

Also in December of 2014, the [[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine|National Research Council]] and the [[Institute of Medicine]] organized a two-day symposium to discuss the potential risks and benefits of Gain-of-Function Research. The event was attended by scientists from around the world, including [[George F. Gao|George Gao]], [[Gabriel Leung]] and [[Michael Selgelid]], [[Baruch Fischhoff]], [[Alta Charo]], [[Harvey V. Fineberg|Harvey Fineberg]], [[Jonathan D. Moreno|Jonathan Moreno]], [[Ralph Cicerone]], [[Margaret Hamburg]], [[Jo Handelsman]], [[Samuel L. Stanley|Samuel Stanley]], [[Kenneth Berns]], [[Ralph Baric]], [[Robert A. Lamb|Robert Lamb]], [[Silja Vöneky]], [[Keiji Fukuda]], [[David Relman]], and [[Marc Lipsitch]].<ref>https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/gain-of-function-research-a-symposium</ref> One day later, the US government granted exceptions to the GoFR moratorium to seven out of 18 research projects that had been affected.<ref name=vfsumm/>

=== Gain-of-Function Research A Second Symposium ===
On March 10-11, 2016, the [[National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]] held its second public symposium to discuss potential U.S. government policies for the oversight of gain-of- function (GOF) research. The symposium was held at the request of the U.S. government to provide a mechanism to engage the life sciences community and the broader public and solicit feedback on optimal approaches to ensure effective federal oversight of GOF research as part of a broader U.S. government deliberative process.<ref name="NAP">{{cite book|url=https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/GOF_symposium_summary_March_2016.pdf|title=Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of the Second Symposium|date= March 2016|isbn= 9780309440776|doi=10.17226/23484|pmid=27403489|access-date=January 29, 2021|editor1-last=Millett|editor1-first=Piers|editor2-first=Jo|editor2-last=Husbands|editor3-first=Frances|editor3-last=Sharples|editor4-first=Audrey|editor4-last=Thevenon|last1=Board On Life|first1=Sciences|author2=Division on Earth Life Studies|author3=Board on Health Sciences Policy|last4=Health Medicine|first4=Division|last5=Committee On Science|first5=Technology|last6=Policy Global|first6=Affairs|last7=National Academies Of Sciences|first7=Engineering}}</ref>

== Academic advocacy groups ==
=== The Cambridge Working Group ===
The '''Cambridge Working Group''' was formed by Harvard epidemiologist [[Marc Lipsitch]] with fellow scientists at a meeting held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, following a "trifecta" of biosecurity incidents involving the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|CDC]], including the accidental exposure of viable anthrax to personnel at CDC's Roybal Campus, the discovery of six vials containing viable smallpox from the 1950s mislabeled as Variola at the FDA's White Oak campus, and the accidental shipping of H9N2 vials contaminated with H5N1 from the CDC lab to a USDA lab.<ref>{{Cite web|date=July 15, 2014|title=Scientists call for limit on creating dangerous pathogens|url=https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/scientists-call-limit-creating-dangerous-pathogens|url-status=live|website=[[Science]] &#124; AAAS}}</ref> The group engaged in public advocacy, influencing the US Government's decision in Dec 2015 to issue a moratorium on funding research creating certain types of novel potential pandemic pathogens.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Lipsitch|first1=Marc|last2=Inglesby|first2=Thomas V.|date=December 12, 2014|title=Moratorium on Research Intended To Create Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens|journal=mBio|volume=5|issue=6|doi=10.1128/mBio.02366-14|pmc=4271556|pmid=25505122}}</ref> In December 2017, the three-year moratorium expired.

On July 14, 2014, the group published a Consensus Statement with 18 original signatories and founding members, including [[Amir Attaran]], [[Barry Bloom]], [[Arturo Casadevall]], [[Richard H. Ebright]], [[Alison Galvani]], [[Edward Hammond (researcher)|Edward Hammond]], [[Thomas Inglesby]], [[Michael Osterholm]], [[David Relman]], [[Richard J. Roberts|Richard Roberts]], [[Marcel Salathé]] and [[Silja Vöneky]]. Within the first two months of publishing the Consensus Statement, 50 more Charter Members signed, and has since been signed by over 200 scientists.

The group is not concerned so much with "gain of function" studies in general, but with applying the tool to creating variants with increased transmissibility and virulence among mammals that could also affect humans in the case of a deliberate or accidental lab release. The group advocates for devising alternative research methods that would meet the same research objectives.

=== Scientists for Science ===
Shortly after the Cambridge Working Group released its position statement, '''Scientists for Science''' was formed by 37 signatories taking an opposing position.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Edelmann|first1=Achim|last2=Moody|first2=James|last3=Light|first3=Ryan|date=2017-05-24|title=Disparate foundations of scientists' policy positions on contentious biomedical research|journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]|language=en|volume=114|issue=24|pages=6262–6267|doi=10.1073/pnas.1613580114|issn=0027-8424|pmid=28559310|pmc=5474814|doi-access=free}}</ref> The group's founder, [[Paul Duprex]], said that studies on risky germs are already subject to extensive regulations saying that it would be better to focus more on lab safety, not limiting the types of experiments that can be done.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/08/13/339854400/biologists-choose-sides-in-safety-debate-over-lab-made-pathogens|access-date=2021-05-07|website=NPR.org|language=en}}</ref>

Notable signatories are [[Constance Cepko]], [[Dickson Despommier]], [[Erica Ollmann Saphire]], [[Geoffrey L. Smith|Geoffrey Smith]], [[Karla Kirkegaard]], [[Sean Whelan (scientist)|Sean Whelan]], [[Vincent Racaniello]] and [[Yoshihiro Kawaoka]]. Columbia University virologist [[W. Ian Lipkin|Ian Lipkin]], who signed both statements, said "there has to be a coming together of what should be done".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Science Magazine - 05 September 2014 - page20|url=https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/05_september_2014?pg=20|access-date=2021-05-07|website=www.sciencemagazinedigital.org|language=en}}</ref>

Founders of both groups published a paper calling for further debate on the subject.<ref>https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro3405</ref>

== International policies and regulations ==

International outlook and engagement on gain of function research policy and regulation vary by country and region. Due to the potential affect on the global community at large, the ethical acceptability of such experiments depends on the extent to which it is accepted internationally.<ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/</ref>

=== European Union ===
The European Academies Science Advisory Council has formed a working group on GoFR to examine the issues raised by gain of function Research and to make recommendations for the management of such research and its outputs.<ref>https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s/reports_statements/Gain_of_Function/EASAC_GOF_Web_complete_centred.pdf</ref> The possibility for developing common approaches between the United States and Europe has been explored. <ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373318/</ref>

=== Germany ===
In May 2014, the [[Bundestag]] was presented a report written by the [[National Ethics Council]] on proposed guidance for governance of GoFR.<ref name="vfsumm">{{cite news|date=12 December 2014|title=SUMMARY REPORT DUAL USE RESEARCH ON MICROBES: Biosafety, Biosecurity, Responsibility|publisher=Volkswagen Foundation|url=https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/sites/default/files/downloads/Summary_Report_HS_Dual_Use_Research_on_Microbes.pdf}}</ref> At the time, some in Germany were concerned over "GoFR pathogenic pandemic microbes raging out of control".<ref name=vfsumm/> Epidemiologist [[Marc Lipsitch]] used "data of past biosafety breaches to calculate that" they occur with a probability "of 0.01 to 0.1 percent per lab per year."<ref name=vfsumm/>

=== United States ===

In October 2014, [[The White House]] under the [[Obama administration]] instituted a moratorium on gain-of-function research into [[influenza]], [[MERS]], and [[SARS]], launched inquiries from the [[Office of Science and Technology Policy]] (OSTP); the [[National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity]] (NSABB); and the symposia by [[National Research Council (United States)|National Research Council]] (NRC),<ref name="jaobama">{{cite news |last1=Akst |first1=Jef |title=Moratorium on Gain-of-Function Research |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/the-nutshell/moratorium-on-gain-of-function-research-36564 |publisher=The Scientist |date=21 October 2014}}</ref> and paused funding for all projects for three years.<ref name="hhso17">{{cite news |title=U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses |url=http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/gain-of-function.pdf |agency=Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |date=17 October 2014}}</ref><ref name="cutobama">{{cite news |last1=McNeil |first1=Donald G. Jr. |title=White House to Cut Funding for Risky Biological Study |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/18/us/white-house-to-cut-funding-for-risky-biological-study.html |newspaper=The New York Times Company |date=17 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Kaiser|first1=Jocelyn|last2=Malakoff|first2=David|title=U.S. halts funding for new risky virus studies, calls for voluntary moratorium|url=http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/us-halts-funding-new-risky-virus-studies-calls-voluntary-moratorium|access-date=28 July 2016|publisher=Science|date=17 October 2014}}</ref><ref name="imperiale16">{{cite journal|url= |doi=10.1128/mSphere.00069-16|title=Zika Virus Focuses the Gain-of-Function Debate|year=2016|last1=Imperiale|first1=Michael J.|last2=Casadevall|first2=Arturo|journal=mSphere|volume=1|issue=2|pmid=27303723|pmc=4894681}}</ref> At least 18 GoFR projects were affected, "including work that had been continued ... in the labs of Fouchier and Kawaoka."<ref name=vfsumm/>


In May 2016,<ref name=rp3co/> the NSABB published "Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-Function Research".<ref name="rnsabb">{{cite news |title=RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION AND OVERSIGHT OF PROPOSED GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH |url=https://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/resources/NSABB_Final_Report_Recommendations_Evaluation_Oversight_Proposed_Gain_of_Function_Research.pdf |agency=National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity |publisher=United States Department of Health and Human Services |date=May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107112313/https://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/resources/NSABB_Final_Report_Recommendations_Evaluation_Oversight_Proposed_Gain_of_Function_Research.pdf |archive-date=7 January 2017 }}</ref>
In May 2016,<ref name=rp3co/> the NSABB published "Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-Function Research".<ref name="rnsabb">{{cite news |title=RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION AND OVERSIGHT OF PROPOSED GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH |url=https://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/resources/NSABB_Final_Report_Recommendations_Evaluation_Oversight_Proposed_Gain_of_Function_Research.pdf |agency=National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity |publisher=United States Department of Health and Human Services |date=May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170107112313/https://osp.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/resources/NSABB_Final_Report_Recommendations_Evaluation_Oversight_Proposed_Gain_of_Function_Research.pdf |archive-date=7 January 2017 }}</ref>
Line 79: Line 31:


On 19 December 2017 under the [[Trump administration]], the [[NIH]] lifted the Obama moratorium into GoFR because it was deemed to be "important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to [[public health]],"<ref name="nihd19">{{cite news |last1=Collins |first1=Francis S. |title=NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research |url=https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research |publisher=Director, National Institutes of Health |date=19 December 2017}}</ref> because on the same day the [[HHS P3CO Framework]] restored it.<ref name="HHSP3CO">{{cite news |title=Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens |url=https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/p3co.pdf |publisher=Department of Health and Human Services |agency=Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response |date=19 December 2017}}</ref><ref name=nihd19/>
On 19 December 2017 under the [[Trump administration]], the [[NIH]] lifted the Obama moratorium into GoFR because it was deemed to be "important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to [[public health]],"<ref name="nihd19">{{cite news |last1=Collins |first1=Francis S. |title=NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research |url=https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research |publisher=Director, National Institutes of Health |date=19 December 2017}}</ref> because on the same day the [[HHS P3CO Framework]] restored it.<ref name="HHSP3CO">{{cite news |title=Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens |url=https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/p3co.pdf |publisher=Department of Health and Human Services |agency=Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response |date=19 December 2017}}</ref><ref name=nihd19/>

=== World Health Organization ===
The [[World Health Organization]] in 2010 developed a "guidance document" for [[Dual Use Research of Concern]] (DURC) in the life sciences because "research that is intended [to] benefit, but which might easily be misapplied to do harm".<ref name="whodurc">{{cite news |title=Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) |url=https://www.who.int/csr/durc/en/ |access-date=4 February 2021 |publisher=World Health Organization}}</ref><ref>https://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/HSE_GAR_BDP_2010_2/en/</ref> The recommendations the document provided a self-assessment means for researchers and laboratories to determine their oversight of dual use research are was none binding on member states.<ref>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK458498/</ref>


== Society and culture ==
== Society and culture ==
Line 90: Line 39:


The [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]] has openly participated in ''gain of function research'' in partnership with US universities and institutions.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chaos under heaven: Wuhan lab book excerpt|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322|publisher=Politico|author=Josh Rogin|date=8 March 2021}}</ref>
The [[Wuhan Institute of Virology]] has openly participated in ''gain of function research'' in partnership with US universities and institutions.<ref>{{cite web|title=Chaos under heaven: Wuhan lab book excerpt|url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/08/josh-rogin-chaos-under-heaven-wuhan-lab-book-excerpt-474322|publisher=Politico|author=Josh Rogin|date=8 March 2021}}</ref>

== Biorisk concern ==
In December 2014, a three-day symposium was organized by the [[Volkswagen Foundation]] with the [[Max Planck Society]] at [[Hanover, Germany]]. Concerns were "raised that the GoFR strains themselves were a threat to public health in two ways: First, because the knowledge of how to tweak an influenza virus into a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) could be used by bioterrorists or for biological warfare purposes. Second, because the tweaked viruses could escape (or could be stolen) from the laboratory and could cause a pandemic."<ref name="vfsumm"/>

[[Volker Stollorz]] maintained at the symposium that "the public knows that with the ever-increasing experimental power and the growing diversity of scientific disciplines nobody can claim to grasp precisely what may happen." Said Stollorz: "Researchers who want to perform experiments creating man-made, new, more virulent, and transmissible microbial life forms not existing in nature have to first and foremost acknowledge the existence of the society they experiment in." A reporter at the forum characterized the problem thusly: "Societies need time to understand and digest the new science because the regulation has to adapt constantly to the new realities made possible by scientists."<ref name=vfsumm/>

=== The Cambridge Working Group ===
The '''Cambridge Working Group''' is a group of [[medical research]] scientists and bioethics experts concerned with the [[biosafety]] and [[biosecurity]] risks of gain of function research. The group has engaged in public advocacy, influencing the US Government's decision in Dec 2015 to issue a moratorium on funding research creating certain types of novel potential pandemic pathogens. In December 2017, the three-year moratorium expired.

The group was formed by Harvard epidemiologist [[Marc Lipsitch]] at a meeting held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, following a "trifecta" of biosecurity incidents involving the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|CDC]], including the accidental exposure of viable anthrax to personnel at CDC's Roybal Campus, the discovery of six vials containing viable smallpox from the 1950s mislabeled as Variola at the FDA's White Oak campus, and the accidental shipping of H9N2 vials contaminated with H5N1 from the CDC lab to a USDA lab. On July 14, 2014, the group published a Consensus Statement with 18 original signatories and founding members. Within the first two months of publishing the Consensus Statement, 50 more Charter Members signed, and has since been signed by over 200 scientists.

The group advocates for devising alternative research methods that would meet the same research objectives.


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 10:03, 16 May 2021

Gain of function research (GoFR) is a field of medical research focused on the serial passaging of microorganisms in vitro and in vivo. This places positive selective pressure on the microorganisms to effect mutations that would increase their pathogenicity, transmissibility, and antigenicity. These studies can also expand the host tropism of a pathogen to new host species or organ tissue. This research is intended to reveal targets to better predict emerging infectious diseases and to develop vaccines and therapeutics.

In virology, gain-of-function research is employed with the intention of better understanding current and future pandemics.[1] 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.[1]

History

In February 2000, a group at the Utrecht University led by Peter Rottier published a paper on their gain-of-function studies titled "Retargeting of Coronavirus by Substitution of the Spike Glycoprotein Ectodomain: Crossing the Host Cell Species Barrier" detailing how they constructed a mutant of the coronavirus mouse hepatitis virus, replacing the ectodomain of the spike glycoprotein (S) with the highly divergent ectodomain of the S protein of feline infectious peritonitis virus. According to the paper, "the resulting chimeric virus, designated fMHV, acquired the ability to infect feline cells and simultaneously lost the ability to infect murine cells in tissue culture".[2]

The World Health Organization in 2010 developed a "guidance document" for Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) in the life sciences because "research that is intended [to] benefit, but which might easily be misapplied to do harm".[3]

In May 2012, a Japanese group of scientists operating out of the University of Wisconsin with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, ERATO, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and support gifts from the National Institutes of Health and the Vietnamese National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology published a paper in the journal Nature about airborne transmission of the H5N1 bird flu introduced via respiratory droplet transmission from one ferret to another. The group "had altered the virus’s amino acid profile, allowing it to reproduce in mammal lungs, which are a bit colder than bird lungs. That small change allowed the virus to be transmitted via coughing and sneezing, and it solved the riddle of how H5N1 could become airborne in humans... (Some) members of Congress, among other critics around the world, responded to the publication of the research with alarm and condemnation." A New York Times editorial described the event as "An Engineered Doomsday."[4][5]

In May 2013, Hualan Chen, who was then director of the China's National Avian Influenza Reference Laboratory, and colleagues successfully created a new strain of influenza virus through a gain-of-function experiment at the BSL3 approved Harbin Veterinary Research Institute.[6] The Chinese scientists "deliberately mixed the H5N1 bird-flu virus, which is highly lethal [to birds] but not easily transmitted between [humans], with a 2009 strain of H1N1 flu virus, which is very infectious to humans."[7] This event caused consternation in European biotech circles, as Professor Simon Wain-Hobson of the Pasteur Institute the Chinese scientists "haven’t been thinking clearly about what they are doing. It’s very worrying... The virological basis of this work is not strong. It is of no use for vaccine development and the benefit in terms of surveillance for new flu viruses is oversold," while Lord May of Oxford said: "The record of containment in labs like this is not reassuring. They are taking it upon themselves to create human-to-human transmission of very dangerous viruses. It’s appallingly irresponsible."[7]

In May 2014, the Bundestag was presented a report written by the National Ethics Council on proposed guidance for governance of GoFR.[8] At the time, some in Germany were concerned over "GoFR pathogenic pandemic microbes raging out of control".[8] Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch used "data of past biosafety breaches to calculate that" they occur with a probability "of 0.01 to 0.1 percent per lab per year."[8]

In October 2014, The White House under the Obama administration instituted a moratorium on gain-of-function research into influenza, MERS, and SARS, launched inquiries from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB); and the symposia by National Research Council (NRC),[9] and paused funding for all projects for three years.[10][11][12][13] At least 18 GoFR projects were affected, "including work that had been continued ... in the labs of Fouchier and Kawaoka."[8]

In December 2014, Veronique Kiermer (at the time on the editorial board of Nature) discussed the considerations at her place of employment, that go into the publication of DURC. She came to the conclusion that "the journal's editorial and review boards should not (and could not) be the only gatekeepers who decide which research results should be published, either fully or redacted, 'because it is way too late in the process of GoFR.'"[8]

In December 2014, the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine organized a two-day symposium to discuss the potential risks and benefits of Gain-of-Function Research. The event was attended by scientists from around the world, including George Gao, Gabriel Leung and Michael Selgelid, Baruch Fischhoff, Alta Charo, Harvey Fineberg, Jonathan Moreno, Ralph Cicerone, Margaret Hamburg, Jo Handelsman, Samuel Stanley, Kenneth Berns, Ralph Baric, Robert Lamb, Silja Vöneky, Keiji Fukuda, David Relman, and Marc Lipsitch.[14] One day later, the US government granted exceptions to the GoFR moratorium to seven out of 18 research projects that had been affected.[8]

In 2016, synthetic virology scientists and bioethics experts again raised concerns with the dual-use of gain-of-function research.[1][13]

By March 2016 the second symposium launched by the Obama administration reported that funding for gain-of-function research was provided by government agencies, pharmaceutical research companies, venture capital funds, colleges and universities, non-profit research institutions, foundations, and charities.[15]

In May 2016,[16] the NSABB published "Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-Function Research".[17]

On 9 January 2017, the HHS published the "Recommended Policy Guidance for Departmental Development of Review Mechanisms for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight" (P3CO).[16]

On 19 December 2017 under the Trump administration, the NIH lifted the Obama moratorium into GoFR because it was deemed to be "important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health,"[18] because on the same day the HHS P3CO Framework restored it.[19][18]

Society and culture

The 2014 Hannover symposium summary mentioned the 1962 play by Friedrich Dürrenmatt, Die Physiker, in which a character named Mobius (who is one of the titular physicists) feigned insanity when he realized that his basic research might have an alternative use, [and therefore] he committed himself to an asylum to protect the world from his knowledge.[8]

During the COVID-19 pandemic a number of theories spread about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and were sometimes deployed as a form of political propaganda. Virologist Angela Rasmussen wrote that one version of the information invoked previous gain-of-function work on coronaviruses to promulgate the idea that the virus was of laboratory origin. Rasmussen stated that this was unlikely, due to the intense scrutiny and government oversight to which GoFR is subject, and it is improbable that research on hard-to obtain coronaviruses could occur under the radar.[20]

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has openly participated in gain of function research in partnership with US universities and institutions.[21]

Biorisk concern

In December 2014, a three-day symposium was organized by the Volkswagen Foundation with the Max Planck Society at Hanover, Germany. Concerns were "raised that the GoFR strains themselves were a threat to public health in two ways: First, because the knowledge of how to tweak an influenza virus into a potential pandemic pathogen (PPP) could be used by bioterrorists or for biological warfare purposes. Second, because the tweaked viruses could escape (or could be stolen) from the laboratory and could cause a pandemic."[8]

Volker Stollorz maintained at the symposium that "the public knows that with the ever-increasing experimental power and the growing diversity of scientific disciplines nobody can claim to grasp precisely what may happen." Said Stollorz: "Researchers who want to perform experiments creating man-made, new, more virulent, and transmissible microbial life forms not existing in nature have to first and foremost acknowledge the existence of the society they experiment in." A reporter at the forum characterized the problem thusly: "Societies need time to understand and digest the new science because the regulation has to adapt constantly to the new realities made possible by scientists."[8]

The Cambridge Working Group

The Cambridge Working Group is a group of medical research scientists and bioethics experts concerned with the biosafety and biosecurity risks of gain of function research. The group has engaged in public advocacy, influencing the US Government's decision in Dec 2015 to issue a moratorium on funding research creating certain types of novel potential pandemic pathogens. In December 2017, the three-year moratorium expired.

The group was formed by Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch at a meeting held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, following a "trifecta" of biosecurity incidents involving the CDC, including the accidental exposure of viable anthrax to personnel at CDC's Roybal Campus, the discovery of six vials containing viable smallpox from the 1950s mislabeled as Variola at the FDA's White Oak campus, and the accidental shipping of H9N2 vials contaminated with H5N1 from the CDC lab to a USDA lab. On July 14, 2014, the group published a Consensus Statement with 18 original signatories and founding members. Within the first two months of publishing the Consensus Statement, 50 more Charter Members signed, and has since been signed by over 200 scientists.

The group advocates for devising alternative research methods that would meet the same research objectives.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Selgelid, Michael J. (2016-07-06). "Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis". Science and Engineering Ethics. 22 (4): 923–964. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1. PMC 4996883. PMID 27502512.
  2. ^ Kuo, L.; Godeke, G. J.; Raamsman, M. J.; Masters, P. S.; Rottier, P. J. (2000). "Retargeting of coronavirus by substitution of the spike glycoprotein ectodomain: Crossing the host cell species barrier". Journal of Virology. 74 (3): 1393–406. doi:10.1128/jvi.74.3.1393-1406.2000. PMC 111474. PMID 10627550.
  3. ^ "Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC)". World Health Organization. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
  4. ^ Imai, Masaki; Watanabe, Tokiko; Hatta, Masato; Das, Subash C.; Ozawa, Makoto; Shinya, Kyoko; Zhong, Gongxun; Hanson, Anthony; Katsura, Hiroaki; Watanabe, Shinji; Li, Chengjun; Kawakami, Eiryo; Yamada, Shinya; Kiso, Maki; Suzuki, Yasuo; Maher, Eileen A.; Neumann, Gabriele; Kawaoka, Yoshihiro (2012). "Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets". Nature. 486 (7403): 420–428. Bibcode:2012Natur.486..420I. doi:10.1038/nature10831. PMC 3388103. PMID 22722205.
  5. ^ Tucker, Patrick (n.d.). "To Protect Ourselves From Bioweapons, We May Have to Reinvent Science Itself". Defense One.
  6. ^ Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Kong, H.; Jiang, Y.; Gao, Y.; Deng, G.; Shi, J.; Tian, G.; Liu, L.; Liu, J.; Guan, Y.; Bu, Z.; Chen, H. (2013). "H5N1 Hybrid Viruses Bearing 2009/H1N1 Virus Genes Transmit in Guinea Pigs by Respiratory Droplet". Science. 340 (6139): 1459–1463. Bibcode:2013Sci...340.1459Z. doi:10.1126/science.1229455. PMID 23641061. S2CID 206544849.
  7. ^ a b Connor, Steve (2 May 2013). "'Appalling irresponsibility': Senior scientists attack Chinese researchers for creating new strains of influenza virus in veterinary laboratory". The Independent.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i "SUMMARY REPORT DUAL USE RESEARCH ON MICROBES: Biosafety, Biosecurity, Responsibility" (PDF). Volkswagen Foundation. 12 December 2014.
  9. ^ Akst, Jef (21 October 2014). "Moratorium on Gain-of-Function Research". The Scientist.
  10. ^ "U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses" (PDF). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. 17 October 2014.
  11. ^ McNeil, Donald G. Jr. (17 October 2014). "White House to Cut Funding for Risky Biological Study". The New York Times Company.
  12. ^ Kaiser, Jocelyn; Malakoff, David (17 October 2014). "U.S. halts funding for new risky virus studies, calls for voluntary moratorium". Science. Retrieved 28 July 2016.
  13. ^ a b Imperiale, Michael J.; Casadevall, Arturo (2016). "Zika Virus Focuses the Gain-of-Function Debate". mSphere. 1 (2). doi:10.1128/mSphere.00069-16. PMC 4894681. PMID 27303723.
  14. ^ https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/gain-of-function-research-a-symposium
  15. ^ Board On Life, Sciences; Division on Earth Life Studies; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Health Medicine, Division; Committee On Science, Technology; Policy Global, Affairs; National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering (March 2016). Millett, Piers; Husbands, Jo; Sharples, Frances; Thevenon, Audrey (eds.). Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of the Second Symposium (PDF). doi:10.17226/23484. ISBN 9780309440776. PMID 27403489. Retrieved January 29, 2021. {{cite book}}: |author3= has generic name (help)
  16. ^ a b "Recommended Policy Guidance for Departmental Development of Review Mechanisms for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO)" (PDF). Department of Health and Human Services. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. 9 January 2017.
  17. ^ "RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION AND OVERSIGHT OF PROPOSED GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH" (PDF). United States Department of Health and Human Services. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. May 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 January 2017.
  18. ^ a b Collins, Francis S. (19 December 2017). "NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain-of-Function Research". Director, National Institutes of Health.
  19. ^ "Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens" (PDF). Department of Health and Human Services. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. 19 December 2017.
  20. ^ Rasmussen A (2021). "On the origins of SARS-CoV-2". Nature Medicine. 27 (9): 9. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-01205-5. PMID 33442004. S2CID 231606580.
  21. ^ Josh Rogin (8 March 2021). "Chaos under heaven: Wuhan lab book excerpt". Politico.