My biggest concern when I saw the political controversy around GoF research was that new rules would be used inappropriately to stop important research that keeps us safe. That seems to be happening in this case, more or less as I feared.
As others have pointed out, this is a fairly routine practice that happens even in schools. It’s the nature of the experiment that makes it relatively safe. The fact that it happens in a protected lab is just icing on the cake (they’re dealing with TB bacteria, so it’s inherently non-zero danger just because of that.) You seem to be pointing to the icing and arguing that because one part of the cake might not be perfect, the whole thing is unsafe. But it’s the entire cake that the author is pointing to in their argument. And then rather than engage with the article, you’re arguing that, rather than engage on the substance, we need to engage on the level that some non-experts (who don’t understand the protocols) are scared and hence the correct standard is that we need our practices to reassure them.
But we’ll never be able to reassure terrified, scientifically under-informed people to their satisfaction, particularly when they’ve already decided that GoF is somewhat scary and maybe even partisan. So the result of this attitude is that we can’t do relatively safe but important research on diseases that might save your life or the life of someone you love.
As the OP in this thread, @gwd hit the nail on the head- there are potentially good arguments being made in this thread, but their tone and innuendo mean that they don't work as well as they should.
(Also, FWIW I have an advanced degree and 10 years employment at research institutions under my belt, including 4 in medicine. Its not that I don't believe the claims in the article, its just that they are outside my field of expertise and I want to understand them)
Oh, did you do any molecular bio/ genetics at all during your medicine studies/work? I might need to adjust my other post to make it more useful to you, potentially.
> But we’ll never be able to reassure terrified, scientifically under-informed people to their satisfaction, particularly when they’ve already decided that GoF is somewhat scary and maybe even partisan.
1. You don't have to be "scientifically under-informed" to find C concerning
Listen, I don't consider myself an under-informed person. I have a PhD in computer science, I regularly watch science videos on YouTube, I click on interesting things (like this article) that show up on Hacker News. But until this thread, I had never heard that the sort of thing described at the top-level comment even went on, much less was I familiar with the containment protocols. (How could I not, if I they're taught in Biology 101? I'm pretty sure I didn't take Biology 101; only Physics and Chemistry.)
My starting assumption coming into this thread was that the protocols described here probably are perfectly safe; and that even for more dangerous GoF research, informed people have done a cost-benefits analysis, and determined that the lives potentially saved are worth the lives potentially risked.
Points A and B of the person I responded to reassured me.
But point C I personally find concerning. In computer science, only an absolute fool would ever say, "This system has absolutely no security vulnerabilities". On the contrary, you generally have to live with the fact that there almost certainly are security vulnerabilities in any system you run, and hope that they're found by the good guys before they're exploited by the bad guys; as well as structuring your system to be able to minimize the potential lost caused if not.
Now sure, maybe I'd have a different attitude if I'd taken Biology 101. But that doesn't change the fact that C, as stated, actually weakened the article towards someone like me, who is generally prone to trust the scientific establishment. How much more would it weaken the argument to someone with a more skeptical, anti-science stance?
2. In a democracy, the opinion of the "scientifically under-informed" matters
I realize it's frustrating to have to explain this to the "scientifically under-informed", many of whom are being misled by bad actors trying to profit by stoking fear. But that's the reality of the world we live in. It's not enough to know the right answer; you must convince other people of the right answer.
And I won't even say "unfortunately", because this is a fundamental feature of democracy. Like checks and balances or trial by jury, having to convince non-experts prevents the system from going wrong.
But I think that's basically the problem here. We've decided, as non-experts, to meddle in a field that we don't understand. And so obviously we're making a mess of it.
I'm not suggesting we should butt out entirely as non-experts. I'm saying we should defer to people who really understand the field. In this case, we have plenty of experts who actually know what they're talking about, some on the pro-GoF side and some on the anti-GoF side. The commonality is that I've never once heard any expert from either side express concern about techniques that induce resistance to non-human-use antibiotics. And I suspect the reason I've never heard anyone complain about this is that there isn't really much risk here at all.
So instead of getting upset about how it's scary, and then demanding researchers stop doing research to make us non-experts feel better, we should turn to a stable of people who understand what's happening to help us make these decisions, and stop demanding researchers make us feel better.
As others have pointed out, this is a fairly routine practice that happens even in schools. It’s the nature of the experiment that makes it relatively safe. The fact that it happens in a protected lab is just icing on the cake (they’re dealing with TB bacteria, so it’s inherently non-zero danger just because of that.) You seem to be pointing to the icing and arguing that because one part of the cake might not be perfect, the whole thing is unsafe. But it’s the entire cake that the author is pointing to in their argument. And then rather than engage with the article, you’re arguing that, rather than engage on the substance, we need to engage on the level that some non-experts (who don’t understand the protocols) are scared and hence the correct standard is that we need our practices to reassure them.
But we’ll never be able to reassure terrified, scientifically under-informed people to their satisfaction, particularly when they’ve already decided that GoF is somewhat scary and maybe even partisan. So the result of this attitude is that we can’t do relatively safe but important research on diseases that might save your life or the life of someone you love.