[boublepop]

> “If a $1000 PhD side project could kill millions of people, we must end viral [gain-of-function research], or it may end us.”

This sentimental reminds me of a talk given by a government bomb expert where a naive student asked “why do we allow the ingredients for bombs to be sold in store, shouldn’t we ban them all?”

The answer of cause is that if we do that, then we suddenly don’t have gasoline, orange juice, basic electronics, fertilizer or even just basic sanitation products available anymore, but of cause anyone who wanted to make a bomb would still be able to do so easily.

If it really is the case as pitched that 1000$ gets you a virus that will bring down nations, why on earth would we leave the field only to bad actors? Would that not just make it ever so more important that such researched happened openly and under well funded, strictly controlled conditions so we know what to expect and so we can start to develop plans for counter measures for when the next 9/11-like fanatic driven attack comes along?

[validuser]

There's an infinite number of possible viruses. Inventing some random new ones doesn't protect anyone.

[trenchgun]

We need to be able to defend from the dark arts. Just like in Harry Potter.

[kelnos]

I don't know if this is truly the case (outside my area of expertise), but the article claims that most of the benefits of gain-of-function research can be realized through much safer methods. If true, the "good guys" don't really lose much by refusing to do what the "bad guys" might be doing.

[roenxi]

It isn't a question of sentiment, it is a question of magnitude. Even in the worst case, a psychopath bomb maker just can't do that much damage.