Gain of Function Research – And The Next Pandemic
Should scientists risk new pandemics by enhancing dangerous pathogens?
A highly controversial type of research conducted in a handful of labs has the ability to create new pandemics. Termed “Gain of Function,” these experiments increase the ability of dangerous pathogens to spread and infect hosts, or boost the severity of the disease they inflict. There is no doubt that lab accidents involving such research could spark a pandemic.
Now that the world has witnessed some of the enormous damage that a pandemic can deliver, it is an excellent time to consider whether national or global bans on Gain of Function research should be implemented.
Gain of Function Research and the Risk of the Next Pandemic Report
Why are we creating new deadly pathogens?
As the world still battles Covid 19, scientists are looking for other viruses and bacteria that could trigger future pandemics. Not only are they studying these pathogens to see if and when they could naturally present a risk, they are using genetic engineering and other methods to create new variants that would help them realize their pandemic potential.
This “gain-of-function” research increases the capacity of a pathogen to infect hosts, or to boost the severity of the disease it inflicts. One controversial experiment, for example, enhanced the transmissibility of the H5N1 avian flu. In its natural state, this highly lethal virus kills up to 52% of the people it infects. Fortunately, very few have caught the disease since it requires prolonged contact with infected birds. Gain-of-function experiments, however, created an airborne version that may spread easily between humans. If such an enhanced pathogen escaped the lab, it could decimate the population.
Contesting the scientific justification for enhancing pathogens
Proponents justify the risks of gain-of-function research by claiming that it can help us prevent or respond to future pandemics. Knowing which mutations confer pandemic potential to a virus or bacterium, they say, can aid in pathogen surveillance. They further claim that vaccines can then be developed in advance to target those strains.
Critics point out that gain-of-function research has not produced the touted benefits. Furthermore, experimental results often differ significantly from what was predicted. In various gain-of-function experiments, for example, when “increased fitness” was predicted, fitness was actually crippled; when “elevated virulence” was predicted, the level of virulence “remained unaffected;” and alterations designed to allow a pathogen transmission between mammals simply did not happen.
Researchers working with existing pathogens usually know how the virus is transmitted and how deadly it is. This allows them to conduct an Executive SummaryExecutive Summary. informed risk analysis. The unpredictable nature of the mutations in gain-of-function experiments and the novel pathogens they produce have unknown properties, making risk analysis much more difficult.
A laboratory accident could spark a pandemic
Any benefit of gain-of-function research must be weighed against the potentially catastrophic risks. Although high security labs are typically used for such experiments, their track record is not encouraging. There are reports of hundreds of accidents at such labs, some of which resulted in personnel becoming infected. Accidents have been recorded at facilities with the highest security that deal with the most dangerous pathogens. Furthermore, there is substantial underreporting of accidents and an unwillingness to share research results.
Alternatives to gain-of-function research provide valuable knowledge without the risk
Many scientists argue that the risk of creating a pandemic far outweighs the benefits of gain-of-function research. Fortunately, there are other types of research that can help prevent pandemics or prepare for treatments in advance. The Center for Communicable Diseases recommends spending money on the “rest of the portfolio for flu preparedness” rather than gain-of-function.
The difficulty of selecting ethical standards
Medical research has specific ethical standards for using human subjects. While gain-of-function research does not experiment on people directly, its outcomes could affect whole populations. Some people therefore suggest treating the population as the subjects.
A primary criterion for human subjects is that they give consent. After what the world went through during COVID 19, we can safely assume that public opinion would be vehemently opposed to any action that could risk another pandemic.
A second requirement is that ethical medical research must “yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods.” Many scientists are convinced that other, safer methods can produce the sought-after knowledge.
The third requirement says that research design must be based “on the results of a knowledge of the natural history of the disease.” But gain-of-function research can produce novel diseases with no natural history.
Emergency Legislation
Should scientific freedom to do these extremely high-risk experiments take precedence over creating a global threat, or should gain-of-function research be banned?
When scientists reported that they created an airborne version of the deadly H5N1 avian flu, it produced an outcry from experts and others around the world. The U.S. government imposed a partial moratorium on gain-of-function research in 2014, which was lifted in 2017.
The world has witnessed the enormous impact of a global pandemic. But the death rate of H5N1 is estimated to be up to 24 times that of the COVID-19 virus. The gamble of gain-of-function has never been clearer.
Such research on potentially pandemic pathogens has not yielded reliable results that benefit society. Even the strictest biosafety measures have not mitigated human error. And there are viable research alternatives that have not been exhausted.
Conclusion
It would therefore be reasonable to press for a global ban on this type of gain-of-function research. Intentionally creating highly contagious variants of a disease should be deemed unnecessary and irresponsible.
.
progressiveissuesblog 