[dablweb]

That's not really the case here. Gain of function research can not be justified using this argument.

There are so many potential mutations that putting specific evolutionary pressure on a virus in order to "prevent" only those specific effects has such low efficacy considering the size of the problem space.

GOF research has provided very little in terms of benefits, and many argue it's simply been a way to disguise bioweapons research after the Geneva convention.

[torstenvl]

(Agree with you, but - sorry - as a practitioner in the law of armed conflict, I have to point out that the Biological Weapons Convention didn't take effect until more than a quarter century after the Geneva Conventions of 1949.)

[eli]

The NIH, the scientists doing the research, and most other experts in the field disagree. Partisan politicians are the ones yelling about how dangerous it is. I think I'll listen to the experts.

[vinyl7]

You mean the ones who get their paycheck from this research don't want to lose their job?

[ifyoubuildit]

Do you really know what "most" of the experts agree or disagree with? It seems like you'd have to be an expert yourself to know that.

[nradov]

Are you referring to "experts" in the field such as Peter Daszak?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_letter_%28COVID-19%29?w...

[justrealist]

Do you say the same thing about AGI?