Talk:Gain-of-function research/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Funding Section

Magnovvig, thanks for fleshing out the content. I was just going to add the H5N1 case and the significance of mammalian transmissibility. Do you think it would make sense to add back the Funding section, as it was and still is a topic that multiple reliable sources are reporting on? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality on Cov2 controversies

I am really concerned by sentences such as: "a number of conspiracy theories spread about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, sometimes deployed as a form of political propaganda" in the Society and Culture section. The conspiracy qualifier is solely that of individuals and not wikipedia's to adopt. Alexbrn you revoked my changes when rebasing on them should have been the right approach, as the current version of the article is problematic due to the very reasons you invoked WP:CRITS. Please develop. Thanks. Olivier Peltre (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that SARS-CoV-2 was constructed in a lab is a conspiracy theory, per reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects those. Silently changing this to "theory" is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fact is the reliability of these sources has been put in question by other sources and individuals (the modifications you reverted pointed to such doubts, coming from both scientists and Biden administration officials). Having read the sources you mentioned, I found nothing more than authoritative arguments (one the most convincing being: "Even Trump said it!"). Olivier Peltre (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A theory may be either true or false, while a conspiracy theory is generally regarded as false. Regarding facts, this page has the right to mention that 1) GOF research has been conducted on coronaviruses in Wuhan, as per reliable sources (meaning: from peer-reviewed publications from the very scientists having conducted this research) and 2) Laboratory accidents do happen (meaning: have happened in the past, e.g. several reported SARS-Cov-1 recontaminations, and various older concerns reported in the rest of this page). Please trust I do not wish to feed a sterilous debate on the subject and do not believe Wikipedia is the place for opinion debates. I am only surprised to find the GOF page biased on such a matter. If you think neutral exposition of points 1) and 2) should be censored on the WP, please say so. Olivier Peltre (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure what that means, but there is no doubt there have been conspiracy theories about this per WP:RS, and Wikipedia is bound to reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree there has been conspiracy theories. I’m concerned with lapidary discredit on the possibility of accidental lab contamination, a pathway still under investigation. This possibility raises issues regarding the pursuit of GOF research. Olivier Peltre (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not decide what research is funded and how, but only reports about reliably published results of such findings. Unless there was reliably published evidence, presenting a false balance to suggest that leaks or bioengineered virii may be linked to the pandemic violates WP:NPOV. Unduely pushing such suggestions results in echoing minsinformation and conspiracy theories (with penty of sources reporting on that)... —PaleoNeonate – 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

How can accidental release be a conspiracy theory when (1) a natural intermediary has yet to be found, (even after a large search), and; (2) accidental release is one of the reasons it is controversial(a reason provided in the page text itself) and the epicenter was near one of the few places on Earth where gain of function research is known to be done? If it was a known risk and other etiological theories are not supported, where is the justification for calling it a "conspiracy theory"...other than for political reasons?

Olivier, Wikipedia will never be neutral on any issue that is even tangentially political. Wikipedia's "reliable sources" are what we must use to edit the main articles. Since there is overwhelming bias in the "reliable sources" those biases will be reflected and amplified in Wikipedia. It's the nature of this Beast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.183.247 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Virtually all of the questions and answers/statements posted here since February by participants in this "Neutrality on Cov2 controversies" discussion need to be revisited from scratch. The gain of function hypothesis and the lab-leak hypothesis are now being published by mainstream media reliable sources and quoted statements from leading figures in the medical science and policy community. Remember, hypotheses never require proof (tho they ask for it), and the zoonotic source hypothesis has no proof, and in fact has less evidence than the gain of function and lab leak hypotheses. 108.185.102.135 (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Biological weapons programs vs biological research

@Alexbrn and PaleoNeonate: gain of function research, as it's understood today, is a practice used by microbiologists to understand disease biology and risk. Articles that I'm reading in the academic press describe the practice as relatively recent. However, This article places a huge emphasis on the concept of gain-of-function research as a tactic in biological warfare. This editorial view is accomplished by citing newspaper or political articles that don't mention gain of function research (e.g. this LA Times article about Soviet bioweaponry research [1], or this lawfare blog piece about Synthetic biology [2]). It's also accomplished by frontloading the article with this questionable content. I think the article needs to be re-written so that readers don't come here and immediately think, "ah, gain-of-function research is a form of biological warfare." That view would be a serious distortion of gain-of-function research, and the risks and debates associated with it. -Darouet (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a person you pinged, but I agree. The original writer of this article seemed to have a POV, and it might have spilled over into how they structured the article. Sounds like this biological weapons stuff might be WP:SYNTH. I support your proposed re-structuring. Whenever possible, Wikipedia should favor the academic consensus of what a term means. We can always mention that biological weapons development is different in one sentence, and link to the appropriate article for that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm only really interested in how GoF interacts with the lab leak conspiracy theory, and so far as I know the conspiracy theorists invoking GoF don't necessarily associate it with bioweapons (in fact, I get the impression they avoid talkig about bioweapons to appear more credible). Alexbrn (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae and Alexbrn: OK - I've removed all the stuff that doesn't mention gain-of-function research, or that is redundant. The 2014 symposium *does* mention gain of function research but that's already addressed in the last section of the article, "controversy." -Darouet (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That 21st century section has some WP:PROSELINE going on. This article is going to need some work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Some lab leak or bioweapons claims proponents have attempted to connect the dots with GoF and a previous article revision mentions bioweapons (or at least to aim the article in the direction of potential dangers of biological research). Here's an earlier version. —PaleoNeonate – 09:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Page title is too general

Gain of function research involves serial passage, which is not a new technology and is not the topic of this article. The topic of this article should be the biosafety and biosecurity concerns with certain type of serial passaging experiments. The concern with gain of function research is with experiments that create a combination of high pathogenicity, high transmissibility among mammals and evasion from all available countermeasures - in the same agent - that does not (to our knowledge) exist in nature. This is the definition given by David Relman in this video at the Gain of Function Symposium.

This page should be renamed to one of the following more apt titles:

1: Potential Pandemic Pathogens as per Marc Lipsitch's suggestion at the Symposium, published papers, and US Government regulations. https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/gain-of-function-research/

2: Gain of Function Research of Concern as per Yoshihiro Kawaoka's suggestion at the Gain of Function Symposium and its use by Marc Lipsitch in this paper. http://www.cambridgeworkinggroup.org/documents/lipsitch.pdf

3: aTRIP, as per Paul Duprex and Arturo Casadevall - an acronym for an experiment that uses or more of the DURC agents and produces, aims to produce, or can be reasonably anctipated to alter Transmission, Range and resistance, Infectivity/immunity or Pathogenesis. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271557/

From these sources, it is clear that most scientists agree that the term "Gain of Function Research" is too general to represent their concerns to the lay public.

AvidTyper (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the scope of this article is broader than just concerns, as the sources reflect broad application in biomedical research.[3] Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In a literal sense, GoFR is a series of passaging experiments and most of the articles in PubMed are about such experiments. In Public policy and Public health, GoFR is an imperfect scientific neologism coined for the discussion on the biosafety and biosecurity concerns of experiments creating Potential Pandemic Pathogens. AvidTyper (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The literal sense seems good. If there's been some neologising, and if there are secondary sources for that, that could be covered too; there is already a "biorisk concern" section here. Alexbrn (talk) 06:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Outside of biorisk concern, there isn't anything to Gain of Function Research as a field. Its not a field of medical research, per say. GoFR refers to a method of experimentation with microbes. There are already articles on Wikipedia about Serial passage and Mutation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvidTyper (talk • contribs)

That would seem to be incorrect based just on the sources which already exist in the article. Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverted

Novem Linguae, DGG and Alexbrn, please can you check if my edits were okay? I just spent a few hours reading sources to reference for this article which had hardly any and then got reverted by an editor who offered no explanation. AvidTyper (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper, "likely block evasion" is indeed an explanation. The article was created by banned user ScrupulousScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a known sockpuppet user focused on the same promotion of the lab leak conjecture. Everything about your edit history indicates that you are the same person. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not that editor. Why did you revert all my edits? AvidTyper (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper, because they look like the edits of a sockpuppet (you are, after all, a user with no other focus), and because they promote fringe views. Also your user page suggests a likely WP:COI with respect to the Cambridge Group that you have promoted in this article. Note that this article was started by an abusive user, and so was Gain of function (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both used sockpuppets to promte their agenda. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You are making spurious accusations on all accounts. Gain of function research and the Cambridge group have been all over the news this past week. I improved the article by adding content and sources which you deleted without explanation. AvidTyper (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the question of sockpuppettry has been raised in the proper location: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScrupulousScribe.

I've looked at what AT added. Though I do not agree with all the edits. I do not immediately see which of them is promoting fringe views. The ones I really disagree with is the insertion of lists of scientists who support a position.--that's not good encyclopedic writing. Some edits are insertion of refs to articles in reliable scientific sources, tho I need to check the description of them is accurate (or did I miss any where the article is not in a high quality source?) Also, giving them separate section heading is poor quality organization of an article and overemphasis, Most are copyedits. Some of them are a little questionable--revision of sentence to allow capitalization for emphasis of what need not be capitalized, the insertion of "virus" and similar words too frequently where they are already implied, which in some cases may be overemphasis, , and I think there was some duplication of links that were already present. Others seem OK, or at least justifiable. But there's no point look to see what should be put back until the sockpuppettry question is answered by someone not concerned with the article. I agree , of course, that edits in a possibly controversial article by spas usually do at least present a question . DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

the lede does not match the article

The lead for this article talks about "Gregor Mendel-style" hybridization and selective breeding, and then the body immediately delves into CRISPR gene splicing. This is completely inconsistent and confusing to the average reader. In the present day, gain of function usually refers to gene insertions (or deletion I suppose) 108.185.102.135 (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's actually both. Some examples of modern GOF (such as the successive passaging of H5N1 in ferrets) are more mendel-like. And others are more strictly genetic engineering (such as Dr. He Jiankui's CRISPR babies in China). But yes I fixed that aspect of the "passaging" part of the lead. We're breaking all sorts of MOS:LEAD right now, but I'm working on it (as are others). The wiki is a work in progress and, in my humble opinion, it's getting better in this article specifically.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

NPOV --

AvidTyper there are significant NPOV issues in the parts of the article you've been editing. Please refrain from using phrases cherry picked out of news articles like "deadly flu virus." These are not scientific, and you are using them in sentences about the science. Those statements should be supported by WP:MEDRS, not the popular press. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink Thanks for fixing the problem. I was just restoring content I wrote earlier which I may not have reviewed properly at the time. The Fouchier and Kawaoka experiments were what sparked a lot of the academic debate around GoFR, so I made sure to include the missing Fouchier part and leave the merging to you. AvidTyper (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and that makes sense. But I would also tell you that there was probably a reason that many editors saw those edits as POV-pushing. I definitely see them that way. Be careful how you use the word "claimed." The research cannot claim anything, it has no agency. The proponents claimed X. or, more NPOV, cited X benefits.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper, in particular, I would ask you to please always find proponents of the work when you cite its critics. There are both. And both are available in MEDRS. There was no need to use that article from The Independent, which is not only not MEDRS, it isn't even considered RS for non-politics non-UK content. It's on the same level as The Daily Mail as far as science articles are concerned. See: WP:RSP. I'm done for now, I really gotta go study for my medical board exams... I'll come back to this later but we definitely need to NPOV-revamp that experiments section, and in particular I am not sure what use the "Gain of function research of concern" section provides, I think we need to merge it into the rest of the article and remove repeated content wherever possible. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink Gotit. The DURC section is important. The lay audience should understand that not all GoFR is of concern, as I explained in an earlier discussion above. Thank you for taking the time out of your studies to improve this page. AvidTyper (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper Just realized that when you restored that content you rewrote sections I fixed already, please stop doing that. If you have an issue with how I'm portraying NPOV, bring it to the talk page don't just revert without explanation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink you rewrote the section in the lead, but the DURC deserves its own section in the main body of the article due to the prominence of the issue in academia and the lay press. I restored it from something I wrote a few weeks ago which was removed without explanation and may require further copyediting, but it's all in good faith. Perhaps one of the original authors of this article like Magnovvig can help rewrite the section and improve the article further. AvidTyper (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that section at all. I'm talking about the history in the US component. Why would you copy paste back an entire version of the article? In effect, removing every single change everyone else had been making for weeks? That's essentially WP:OWN. You do not own this article, I do not own this article. SO don't completely remove all the changes I (and others) had been making just so you could restore what you wanted in the article. To be clear, I provided a reason for every change I made, when I removed some of the sentences you restored. They were either undue weight on a subject that was not notable, or they were from non-WP:MEDRS or RS, or they were already covered extensively in other sections. For example, I really don't think we need an entire section for the WHO's feelings on the subject when we have an entire international responses section. And if we did have a WHO-specific section, it should be more than just one citation, one source. It would need to be expanded. So I moved that content over to the international section and integrated it there. If you wanted to bring your content back in, you should have slowly integrated it, instead of just wholesale copy pasting sections like that. More specifically, I am not your copy editor. You should be integrating your changes into the article, and copy editing them. Not copy pasting your entire sandbox of the section and then leaving me to copy edit it and integrate it. That's not my job :( Some of your changes were good, a lot were things I had already reworked to be NPOV. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink please can you check again the changes I made, because I did not copy paste back an entire version of the article, and did in fact copy paste only some pieces. The sentence that you removed from the Society and culture section was not mine. AvidTyper (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I meant the international policy section not the article. You of course left the lead untouched. But with regards to the International policies section, you did remove the edits I and others had made to it, and restored a former version of that section, without any edit explanations and without any notice on this talk page. Here is the diff where you added back in the prior version of that International policies section, removing all the edits I (and others) had made to it. Here is the diff where you removed the modified versions I had written. It looks like it may have been an accident while you restructured the article. I will emphasize that other articles do not have specific "X history" and "Y history" sections. And that we may have to integrate all the different aspects into one history section with subheadings at some later date. But overall my point is, please don't just restore large parts of the article like that without getting consensus. Of course, be bold, but prepare to be reverted and for me to escalate it. My point is, this is the type of thing that was so problematic about the prior editor, and it's why those other users opened a sockpuppet investigation on you. Large-scale reverts, POV-pushing, etc. I had made all those minor edits to bring that international policy section to NPOV. It still has a lot of POV issues. But I will deal with them at a later date when I have time. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok, I overlooked the modified versions you had written. My intention was to split the research content from policy and regulations. I will try to be more careful next time. AvidTyper (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

AvidTyper why did you remove the POV notice? there is no consensus that this article has been made truly NPOV, indeed I literally just said there were more things I was going to fix directly above this--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I thought we resolved the issues. Please do fix any other issues as time permits. Good night! AvidTyper (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

PREDICT Funding of GoF studies

Thucydides411, you deleted a few sentences in the funding section, based on missing reference from the sources provided. It would be better if you append the tag instead of deleting content. It would also be good for you to add content, such as the examples you mentioned in your edit summary, instead of deleting content. Thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You're adding unsourced claims, and then criticizing me for removing them.

PREDICT is primarily known for collecting viral samples from wildlife, not for gain-of-function research. If you're just trying to illustrate gain-of-function research, there are much more famous studies you should describe (such as the avian influenza study). Why are you instead including unsourced material about a program that appears to have little to do with gain-of-function research? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PREDICT funded partners which both collected viral samples from wildlife and performed gain-of-function experiments on them. If you feel there is content that needs better sourcing, then instead of deleting content, it would be better to clarify sources. This is a new article and there is a lot that can be improved. Besides for PREDICT, there are other funding programs we can add, and sources to reference for their activities. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There's currently no sourcing for your claims, as far as I can tell. You're saying that partners that worked with PREDICT did gain-of-function research. Was that research funded by PREDICT?

But more importantly, why is PREDICT being used as an example here, when there are much more famous examples? Is it because conspiracy theorists have tried to tie PREDICT to the coronavirus pandemic? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are in fact both primary and secondary sources, which I will add to the article. Please see WP:NOTPERFECT and give the time required for editors to improve and expand this article instead of deleting content. To answer your question, PREDICT was by far the largest single funding program for GoF research, but not the only one, as you correctly state (please contribute to the article by adding any others you may know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are unacceptable. I find your claim that PREDICT was the largest program for gain-of-function research dubious. Again, why are you using PREDICT to illustrate this research? Why not much more famous gain-of-function studies? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You asked me why I included PREDICT, and I answered, saying they are the largest fund ($200m). I also clarified with you that its not a program dedicated entirely to GoF research, but that it includes it. You will notice also that so far I've added only the Peter Rottier paper into the History section, which was the first notable publication, and I will add more, as we improve and expand the article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that 200 million USD for gain-of-function research? As I understand it, PREDICT funding went overwhelmingly to sample collection and virus characterization. I don't know if any funding went to gain-of-function research. I know this is a common claim of conspiracy theorists online, and there may have been some funding for gain-of-function research in PREDICT (though I've never seen any reliable source that discusses it), but that appears not to be anywhere near its main focus. You're giving PREDICT as an example of gain-of-function research, and that's currently entirely unsourced. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you here to help build an encyclopedic entry on this important field of medical research, or dispel conspiracy theories that may be associated with it? So far, you have yet to add any content, and have instead deleted content, just like you deleted important content from other pages I created, without sufficient reason. Gain of function research is usually conducted as part of larger projects which draw funds from multiple sources and PREDICT is just one of them (like this source says). Please help improve and expand the article instead of deleting content. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of building an encyclopedic entry is removing unsourced content and original research. What part of the study you linked was funded by PREDICT? How much of PREDICT's funding (if any) went to gain-of-function research? You still have not provided any sources that say that PREDICT funded gain-of-function research. I'm removing this content. If you find good sourcing, then please come back to the talk page to discuss it before adding the content about PREDICT back in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The source details a GoF study that was funded by PREDICT. You can read more about it here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with how scientific funding works, but one paper can involve different research projects funded by different grants. From that funding statement, it's unclear what research in the study was funded through PREDICT. But this is a case in which WP:PRIMARY is highly relevant. Wikipedia policy does not allow editors to go digging through primary sources to determine answers to questions like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GoF research is a very narrow field and funding is usually provided as part of a larger project with a network of partners undertaking different parts of it. The NIH is obviously the largest funding provider of medical research in the general, and PREDICT is mentioned in that source, for a project undertaken by two partners. There are other sources that talk about PREDICT and GoF studies, but its not the main topic of this article, as this conversation would seem to indicate. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, any claims about PREDICT funding gain-of-function research would need secondary sourcing. To be included in this article, due weight would also have to be considered. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The source mentioned above is a secondary source, and there are others like it. But like I said, it's not an important detail in this article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper and the grants website you linked above are both primary sources in this context. You're taking an acknowledgement statement from a paper and making inferences based on it. If a reliable source then took that paper and used the acknowledgment to make a statement about PREDICT, that would be a secondary source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a good secondary source. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Policy reminder

Editors are reminded that WP:V is a core content policy. Text should be supported by citations; unreferenced text may be removed. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV again

What do virologists and scientists think of Gain Of Function Research? Do they have a positive, neutral, or negative perception of it? Is it a net positive for the scientific community, or does it cause a lot of problems? Maybe Shibbolethink can help answer this question, or maybe folks can post MEDRS sources that clearly state this. Once we figure out this answer, we may need to adjust the WP:WEIGHT of the positive and negative sections. Right now the article is almost entirely negative sections. I have some ideas about how to fix the tone, but I'll await responses first. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes so in particular, I think the sections on various symposia etc. are probably WP:UNDUE. Likewise with some of the experiments listed in extreme detail. They may have a very small number of mentions in MEDRS. The exception of course would be Fouchier, Kaowoka, and the chimeric viruses from the Chen lab. Those got lots and lots of coverage. But otherwise I think you're right, Novem Linguae, this article has a big ol' fat WP:UNDUE problem. We should probably get some evidence in here to support that from MEDRS, of course. Depicting the consensus. But I would say while there is split among scientists about whether or not GOF is a good idea about some viruses, there is not as much focus on certain particulars as there is in this article. Like the individual minutiae about different countries' policies or regulatory processes, is really not heavily covered anywhere in MEDRS or regular RS.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically, there are two camps that are actually pretty accurately described here, re: pro GOF as already heavily regulated, and anti GOF saying it should be restricted more heavily than it already is. Lots of scientists are on both sides, but everybody pretty much agrees that the vast majority of GOF research is safe, with a few notable exceptions. Interestingly, the more media coverage an experiment gets, the more controversial it tends to be among scientists as well. We are not immune from the influence of the public! Far from it. People dig in their heels when something gains popular attention, and both sides become more certain in their views. This is sort of a microcosm of what we've seen happen in american politics as news coverage of micro-controversies has increased steadily. But safe to say, scientists are fallible, but the consensus is still quite stable in favor of GOF-research in general being a safe thing. You can kind of see this in the Nature-published debates between Paul Duprex and Marc Lipsitch (et al.)--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, thanks for the insights, and thanks for your edits today removing some of the WP:UNDUE. Yeah, this article is about as bad as it comes for WP:UNDUE. We could hypothetically create a super-heading called "controversy" and put every current section underneath it, which is a red flag for how negative the tone is. I think a good path forward will be to add sections to the top of the article describing how gain of function research works, what its uses are, and what mainstream science thinks about the practice. And I think that most of the current sections need major condensing, so that the concern about GoF is proportional to how concerned scientists are about it. Sounds like scientists are slightly concerned about some areas of it, but by no means should these concerns make up 95% of the article's text. (The only reason it's not 100% of the article's text is because you re-wrote the lead, so thank you for that.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink and Novem Linguae I do not think we should frame this scientific debate as a scientific controversy. The current controversy has more to do with the NIH and alleged funding of GoFR at the WIV and the subsequent kerfuffle between Fauci and Paul, hardly any of which is WP:DUE in this article.

I would suggest a number of improvements, as follows:

• Clarify the second sentence of the second paragraph, as it's not faithful to the source. To my knowledge, GoFR’s practical application to vaccine development is more for maximising yield, and that’s more of a production thing than a development thing.

• Clarify the first sentence of the third paragraph, as though it is faithful to that source, DURC isn’t limited just to select agents. Technically, one can design GoFRoC experiments with salmonella.

• Add Menachery et al paper on SHC014 to list of GoFR experiments, as it is the second most prototypical example after the Kawooka/Fouchier work with H5N1 influenza virus [4] [5].

We should also create a "GoFR methods" section above "GoFR experiments" to differentiate passaging from editing techniques. CutePeach (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I can give you one major example of the connection between GoFR and vaccine research. There are many more but here is the first. The ebola vaccine (rVSV-ZEBOV) is made by taking a relatively harmless virus in humans that makes cows and pigs really sick (Indiana strain of Vesicular stomatitis virus or VSV) and removing it's outer glycoprotein "G" from the genome and replacing it with the Ebola glycoprotein (gp). This "frankenvirus" has "gained" the "function" of an altered viral tropism, binding NPC1 instead of LDLR. This "frankenvirus" is much weaker than the original VSV, because the genetically disparate parts don't work together very well. Viruses are highly tuned machines that have evolved to work in nature over millions of generations (see: error catastrophe). So when we just remove some piece and stick another into the genome, it often doesn't work as well as it did, especially when that stuck-on gene is from an entirely different virus family. We call such vaccines "attenuated." There are also SARS-COV-2 vaccines being developed this way. This vaccine has saved thousands of lives in the last few years alone, and will likely only continue to do so for one of the world's most deadly diseases. This VSV is injected into the arm, such that antibodies are made against the gp of Ebola, granting the vaccinees protection against serious illness from Zaire ebolavirus. The vaccine's protective survival rate is nearly 100%, for a disease that used to kill 30-50% and leave many suffering from chronic sequelae.

As I said, I know of many more examples, but here is the first.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That is all good, but the current second sentence of the second paragraph relates more to the metagenomics work some people are doing. We need to edit that sentence to bring it in line with the source it references, or replace it with your examples. CutePeach (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Metagenomics refers to the study of an overall population of organisms' genomes in order to understand the ecology of that population. While related, that is not at all the process described by that sentence.

Here is what the sentence says:

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.

and here is what the citation says (referring to the Fouchier and Kawaoka H5N1 studies in ferrets):

Advocates of these studies/publications argued that they would improve surveillance of H5N1 in nature (facilitating early identification of, and thus better response to, the emergence of potential pandemic strains) and facilitate development of vaccines that might be needed to protect against pandemic strains of the virus.

Now, could you please describe to me what you think is inaccurate about that paraphrasing/summary?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: what does it say in the sentence directly after the one you highlited so nicely in green. Btw, do you agree on my other bullet points above? CutePeach (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:SATISFY. The burden of proof is on you to prove your case since you're arguing against a consensus. Not for me to do your work for you. Our sentence in this article, the one above, is providing the pro-GoFR position. The anti- position is already very well represented here. Probably unduly so.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Who said anything about consensus? I don’t think this is controversial edit and would be happy to do in myself, but I thought the purpose of these talk pages is for us to discuss our edits and collaborate. Can you explain why it would be undue to include that sentence on such an important matter in the lead of the article when we have a statement citing the sentence directly before it? Do you agree with my other bullet points above or are we only going to talk about the things we disagree on? CutePeach (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

One hill at a time.

• Re: the SHC014 article, I disagree with its inclusion, given that it has almost no coverage as a "controversial experiment" outside of WP:FRINGE sources. It would be WP:UNDUE to include it here. Our job in this article is to represent the content with due proportional weight related to its coverage in WP:RSes. And I had a very hard time finding coverage of that experiment outside of fringe blog posts.

• Re: the DURC sentence and select agents, that is what has been the subject of the moratorium, it's what is implicated in the most notable experiments. Non-select agents don't have as much coverage in WP:RSes re: DURC. We need to differentiate the "gain of function" research that is

1. "make cancer cells replicate more quickly in a petri dish"
2. "the concept of GoFR in bioethics"
3. "GoFR bioweapons and mad scientists."

The third one is the massive emphasis in this article. One of these has zero danger for the public (#1), the 3rd clearly does, but has very little coverage in RSes. #1 has very little coverage in RSes, #2 has lots of coverage, and #3 has lots of WP:FRINGE coverage. Hence why that sentence is necessary to focus the article in proportion: #2 > #3 > #1. We need a few sections to further show the "overall" idea of GoFR in the literature (#2), and then to better focus the overall article in proportion to coverage.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Not Collegial

Shibbolethink please can you remove the term "collegial" from the Scientists for Science section. It is not supported by the cited source and is therefore WP:OR. I don’t find Scientists for Science founder Vincent Racaniello’s ad hominem attack on Cambridge Working Group founder Marc Lipsitch to be very collegial [6]. Please can we also fix the non WP:NPOV Angela Rasmussen quote first inserted by Alexbrn which numerous IPs and editors like HalfdanRagnarsson have tried to address [7] [8] [9] [10]. [11]. We want to avoid source bias and WP:POVSOURCING. Thanks. CutePeach (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a common mistake among editors. The sources do not have to say exactly word for word what we say here and indeed, without quotes, that would be plagiarism. I simply summarized the several parts in that source where the authors discuss how making this into a fight between two sides is a misunderstanding. these folks consider each other colleagues. I didn't use an exact quote because it didn't work grammatically and it's spread over many sentences. If you can think of a more neutral way to summarize those parts of the source, I'd love to hear it.

Raccaniello wasn't a part of the discussion in the source, and he does not represent all members of SfS any more than Lipsitch represents all people who are skeptical of GoFR. This is a straw man. It doesn't matter what happened on Twitter between whom, when the source describes this climate for us in a useful way among several people on both sides of these organizations. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

here's the parts I'm talking about:

Additionally, the media feels the need to frame the debate as a fight, which is also counterproductive and harmful, and is doing little to help the public to understand the key issues.

There has hardly been a real debate. I have participated in several public meetings, but opposition against GOF research has been minimal in most of these cases. Instead of a real debate, we have seen the sharing of tweets and one-liners that are copied by press outlets in search of sensation. The lay press and some scientific journals have blindly placed opinion pieces without checking the facts or seeking alternative opinions. The problem here is that much of the press and the public are interested in sensational news but are less interested in careful explanations of the (boring) facts related to the regulatory frameworks that are in place.

If the discussion has been flawed, it is because the pros and cons of the work have both been slightly exaggerated, the tone of the discussion too personalized and emotional

--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

as I said, I couldn't think of a better summary of this content (though I thought about it for the better part of an hour), so if you can I'd love to hear it and see it put it in the article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 NIAID/NIH funded GoF

https://grantome.com/grant/NIH/F30-AI149928-02?fbclid=IwAR0GpjoUpEzz6NqiAZA2Q8tenZPNlVy0hXFLeD9csgvu-wRtx7fY-tdu7Ko "I will completely characterize the ability of mutations to the Lassa virus entry protein to mediate antibody escape from three human monoclonal antibodies currently undergoing therapeutic development. These complete maps of antibody resistance will determine from which antibody it is most difficult for the virus to escape and help evaluate and refine potential antibody immunotherapies." This grant is currently active. Isn't this the definition of GOF? Here is a perma-URL to the general subject https://www.facebook.com/groups/1154470481693356 You need not log on to FB. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Charles Juvon: that is not a wikipedia-preferred reliable source that demonstrates notability or worthiness of inclusion. So we should not put it in the article. If you can find a reliable source that describes this grant and its projects as noteworthy or special or newsworthy in some way, then maybe it should be included. But even then, it should be multiple WP:RSes. And it should be covered in the proportion that scientists are talking about it. Which, personally, I have to tell you there are multiple lab groups all over the world conducting this exact type of research. This single example is not special.

As an aside, I have to tell you, as someone who generated "escape mutants" against Lassa and Hanta in the lab in grad school, it is not dangerous. I know that term probably sounds really scary, but all it means is that this single antibody no longer able to bind the virus. The virus itself generates these exact mutants many millions of times every hour inside the host. So what we are doing in the lab is just isolating those mutants and studying them, to see how to make better vaccines or therapeutics. We are looking, based on where those antibodies are binding and how easy it is for the virus to get out of that binding, if it is possible to make a cocktail of antibodies that cannot be "escaped." We're just taking what the virus does in nature, and removing all the variables and the complexity, to study it.

Viruses are always in an arms race with antibodies. Your body is making better and better antibodies, and the virus is mutating to avoid those antibodies. Doing this in the lab on a much smaller scale with fewer antibodies means we can observe this process and figure out how to make better drugs and vaccines so that the virus can't mutate out of them. Escape mutants of individual antibodies are fundamentally less dangerous than what happens in nature, because this is what the virus naturally does, on a much larger scale, every minute of infecting humans or other animals in the wild.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

An NIH grant application is a reliable source. BTW, where is this work on Lassa and Hanta? I only see your Zika publications. Charles Juvon (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

A grant is a WP:PRIMARY source, hence not useable to determine whether something is significant. It can be used for more details if and only if there are secondary sources reporting on it RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian is right, a grant is a primary source, reliable for matters of fact but not for establishing notability. Here is the Hanta paper (which formed 1/3 of my dissertation) and the Arenavirus stuff (viruses related to and including Lassa, which were collaborations with another member of my lab). You can find all my publications on my Google scholar page.

We actually generated, isolated, and characterized escape mutants of chimeric versions of these viruses (made with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), which is basically inert in humans). We did it this way because it's easier (these VSV chimeras are easier to visualize and stain in the lab and can be used at BSL2). But we also did neutralization experiments at BSL3 (and 4) with the true full natural viruses, and this very likely created escape mutants, just like any time you let a virus replicate with an antibody present, we just didn't isolate and characterize them. We only wanted to make sure the antibodies were capable of neutralizing.

And, as a result of that work, and showing that the antibodies neutralize in different places, recombinant versions of our antibodies may soon be a very effective treatment. In a cocktail, just like Zmapp against Ebola Zaire. Because while the virus may be able to mutate out of one antibody's binding, the more unique antibodies you add into a cocktail, in high enough amounts, the harder it gets for the virus. Eventually, mutating out of one antibody's binding makes you more susceptible to others, and so a cocktail approach like this can actually be curative.

Interestingly enough, the human body gets worse and worse as we age at making many multiple different antibodies during an infection, and "prunes" down to one or just a few similar antibody specificities. It's really complicated but suffice it to say, the way the immune system works is not very well built for launching multiple antibodies all at high levels simultaneously, it instead often defaults to very few "clones." But it's also an issue because it takes so long (14-21 days) for the body to produce these antibodies to a useful extent. To the body, each new virus is completely new and needs a new "R&D effort". We can take what other immune systems have already figured out about the virus (these antibodies) and give them to people right at the beginning of infection, skipping those 14-21 days, so the virus never has a chance to get started. And this also means saving lives, because a lot of people die in those 14-21 days before the immune system starts to win. So the cocktail approach can have the best of all worlds, and help by arming people who have not yet generated their own antibodies. So these escape mutants are just the beginning of a long and thorough process that ends with saving lives. Here is some further reading on antibody cocktails.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Quibbles: a bit absurd to talk about a treatment that doesn't exist as being "very effective". Also, ZMapp was hardly a "very effective" treatment. Heck, it's been retired. Probably better than nothing, but half the patients who took it died anyway.

And Regeneron's REGN-COV2 bites; it only improved mortality a paltry 6% in the biggest study. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the 50% figure for ZMapp, but I don't think it's right, when Zaire Ebola's mortality rate is already 30-50%. When you're talking about ebola patients, 22% mortality in those who took ZMapp versus 37% in those who took placebo is actually pretty darn good. Oh, are you talking about the head to head trial in 2018? Well, I mean when the overall case fatality rate of that outbreak was 81% in untreated people, 50% is actually pretty good. MAb114 (35%) and REGN-EB3 (33%) (a new generation of the anti-ZEBOV mAb cocktail, similar to ZMapp) were still better, though. It's great that better therapeutics are being developed all the time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It was 49%, vs 75%, so possibly about 1/3 less mortality. (From the Wired source in our article on it.) Agreed; progress is good. Still, it's a long way from "pretty good" to "very effective". And ignoring/suppressing "very effective" existing therapeutics in favor of potentially better ones is a great evil, which the jamaletter barely hints at. (Not claiming you're part of the effort.) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

ArbCom Clarification Request

FYI: I have just requested clarification on whether this article is affected by the Arbitration Committee decision on COVID-19. You can see the relevant request and make comments in the section over at the ArbCom Requests page. Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Censorship, fabrication

{{fv}}{{cn}}tags I added have been removed and falsely labeled (with a quote now) that still does NOT adequately support the content. In particular, no evidence to support him claiming an overall exemplary worldwide record of lab safety over the last several decades isn't verifiable. {{Controversial}} added. Some admin involvement may be warranted to deal with the ongoing censorship.

We have http://www.scientistsforscience.org being used as if it's a MEDRS source despite the badly soiled reputations of some signatories, but http://jamaletter.com, without such problems, is effaced. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

For statements of opinion by a group of people, a letter that they signed saying those things, especially when also covered by secondary sources (which this is), is appropriate. I cannot find any WP:RSes that cover the jama letter you linked.

Re: your quote, I paraphrased the NPR article. If you have a problem with the specific paraphrase "an overall exemplary worldwide record of lab safety over the last several decades" then why don't we work together on a rephrasing. I admit that was a very broad paraphrase that I did, based on a combination of the letter and the NPR article. However, that does not change that this is a content dispute, not a conduct one. Your admin tag is probably unnecessary.

How do you feel about: "One of the group's founding members, University of Pittsburgh virologist W. Paul Duprex, has argued (ca. 2014) that the then-recent few events were exceptions to an overall good record of lab safety." Just a more mild paraphrase.

Here's what the NPR article says: [12]

There are multiple events that have come together in a rather unusual convergence," says Paul Duprex, a microbiologist at Boston University. He sees the recent reports of lab mistakes as exceptions — they don't mean you should shut down basic science that's essential to protecting public health, he says.

How would you paraphrase that same sentiment? Let's find which parts we agree on.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Re paraphrase: Sounds good. I hadn't identified who had made the change, and I've pulled the tag. (I was assuming you left all the space between your paragraphs because you welcome interspersed comments. Nope, I see.) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

All good :) I just find it confusing to have interspersed stuff, and I leave spaces between my paragraphs to separate thoughts. Sorry if that was confusing in any way.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

:-). (I vaguely recall that there's evidence that there likely have been some major lab leaks in the past. TBH, I don't recall the quality of the evidence, however. Sound familiar? If not, do ignore me 'till I provide sources. :-) ) --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

https://pubmed.gov/26286690 is one.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to how we paraphrase what someone said. This entire paraphrase is with attribution, as in "X said Y." When we do that, it isn't necessary or even relevant to discuss the accuracy of Y. Only the notability/due weight of including X's thoughts. and given the NPR coverage, it's pretty hard to argue that what Duprex said isn't important.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-Site canvassing

FYI, @Novem Linguae: there is an ongoing discussion on r/conspiracy about how we are "trying to erase gain of function history" when we remove WP:UNDUE content or content that is not from reliable sources. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for mentioning. If it gets out of control, we can WP:RFPP it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is that a problem, if reddit gossips about goings-on on Wikipedia? lol "power mods"! We don't have power mods here, as it isn't reddit! They gossip about anime and Gawker too. Shibbolethink even links to his reddit posts opining on the natural origins of COVID-19 and how anything contrary to that is a conspiracy, right on his Wikipedia user page. No, I'm not stalking him. Rather, I'm confused, because I have been editing Wikipedia since 2011, and do not see any of the usual editor names that get involved in medicine related articles. (Also, it gives the appearance, although we know Wikipedia strongly discourages this, that Shibbolethink has "taken over" or "owns" this article.)--FeralOink (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

One more thought: I believe that Novem Linguae is correct, in giving serious consideration to WP:RFPP'ing this article, even without redditors. GoF research is, and will continue to get a lot of attention, because SARS-CoV-2 origin theories get lots of attention, and there are lots of extremely conspiratorial "Frankenvirus" stories running rampant everywhere now.--FeralOink (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey FeralOink. Off site brigading is concerning on any article (not just this one) because it often causes a bunch of WP:SPAs to arrive and edit the article. As WP:SPA mentions, these editors sometimes have issues with conflicts of interest and advocacy. I don't find your "oh Shibbolethink does it too" argument very convincing, since he isn't going around on Reddit posting links to Wikipedia articles trying to get people with a certain POV to edit them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Novem Linguae. I agreed with you! I will now quote myself saying what I said in my reply to you before: "One more thought: I believe that Novem Linguae is correct, in giving serious consideration to WP:RFPP'ing this article, even without redditors" (the possible interference thereof). I am not going to make any further contributions to this article, to covid19 or anything else where I will get called out even when I agree with other editors. You win, okay?--FeralOink (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FeralOink, if you'd like to accuse me of WP:OWN or WP:CANVAS behavior, please do so on my user talk page, with specific diff-based examples of behavior I've exhibited consistent with a violation of wikipedia policy. Or bring it through the process of dispute resolution (the preferred venue), ARBE, or ANI. Typically, it's not kosher to begin accusations of user misbehavior on article talk pages, because this is a place for discussions of content, not conduct. Additionally, accusing other users of misbehavior without citing any evidence or reasoning is discouraged per WP:ASPERSIONS, although the pattern is the problem, not the single mistaken event like this. It's particularly discouraged to accuse others like this, because it discourages user involvement and runs counter to consensus building. I don't believe I've exhibited ownership behavior of any kind. I've only responded to discussions on this page, and engaged in large-scale rewrites of parts of this article, both of which are entirely reasonable behavior for a content expert like myself. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)(edited 01:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC))

COVID-19 misinformation

The section on COVID-19 seems rather bloated with media coverage of conspiracy theories that seem like they would be better covered under COVID-19 misinformation. I suggest a drastic pruning of such recentist material. See related discussion at Talk:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis#Gain of function. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevant question is "When one searches the literature and sources about "Gain of function," How often does that content come up?" And the answer is "a fair amount." It occupies the first page of the relevant search engines quite prominently. See: [13] ProQuest News and Newspapers(screenshot). Therefore this content is WP:DUE and should be included here per WP:NPOV. It can also be included over there, but one does not preclude the other.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Google hits and news databases are not the relevant literature at all. Scientific and medical topics should rely on reliable scientific and medical sources. Searching Google Scholar for "gain of function" and "gain of function" + "COVID" yields 597,000 and 11,200 results, respectively. I disagree that the latter is WP:DUE. Instead, it's a perfect example of disproportionate focus on recent events. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, have you read meta:Eventualism?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You're saying COVID misinformation coverage will eventually make up a significant part of the academic literature on gain-of-function? If that happens, the article can be expanded to include it. For now WP:MEDRS unfortunately seems to be lacking. That's why we have other articles focused on current events like the lab leak hypothesis etc. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, nope, I'm saying that you should be less concerned with whether this article is perfect right now. In a few months, we will be more able to assess how important this event is to the history of "Gain of function research." Until then, it's been several months since it happened, and it's still a large topic of discussion among the RSes.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

In that case, we should err on the side of omission, rather than mislead readers into thinking that, say, Rand Paul's commentary is given serious weight by scientists. That material can be (and is) covered better in other articles.

In deciding whether something is a large topic of discussion, one would presumably look at coverage relative to the topic as a whole. Google Scholar results suggest it isn't. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, why would you think that this topic is only coverable by MEDRSes, and that DUE should be entirely based upon MEDRS? Do you think that "Gain-of-function" is entirely BMI?

Sounds like something we don't have consensus on.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The article's lead sentence reads (my bolding): Gain-of-function research (GoF research or GoFR) is medical research that genetically alters an organism in a way that may enhance the biological functions of gene products. That sure sounds like a biomedical topic to me.

Per WP:BMI, biomedical information includes how a disease ... is caught or transmitted; the molecular or cellular basis of a disease ... biomedical research that address[es] the above entries or allow[s] conclusions to be made about them. The question of whether genetic (i.e. molecular) manipulation was done to make viruses more transmissible ("super-viruses") encompasses all of the above.

I've shown how the COVID controversy is only a small part of the total coverage according to Google Scholar (which is not all MEDRS). As you helpfully pointed out, scholars set the tone for what counts as "true" and "verified" around here. Feel free to show how the body of scholarly literature on the topic (not just the first page of news results) includes prominent coverage of COVID origin hypotheses. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, they set what is true in the "mainstream scientific view," you are definitely right about that.

However, they are not the only source for what is WP:DUE. A great example would be Stem cell, which includes a section on the sociopolitical challenges of stem cell patents. Another would be CRISPR gene editing, which includes a section on social and cultural implications of the gene editing technology. These sections are not as common in the literature as they are in the news, but we do not only use the literature to answer questions of what is WP:DUE.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this section of this page must be significantly re-written to focus on science (see next thread). Among other things, exclude personal opinion by postdoc Alina Chan we do not have a page about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, the question is not whether she has an article of her own, its whether her opinion of this topic has received significant coverage in articles about this topic. That's what WP:RSUW tells us to do. We quote plenty of people all the time who are not notable enough for their own page.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide MEDRS that quote Chan and are also primarily about gain-of-function research, as opposed to discussing either Chan or GoF in the context of a different topic such as the origins of COVID-19 or the lab leak hypothesis? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, why would I need a MEDRS to discuss a topic that is not BMI?

Or are you suggesting that "whether or not something is GoFR" is BMI? Which, btw, is not even what is at issue here. It's a few quotes from individual scientists about whether or not they think something is GoFR, in proportion to how those views are represented in RSes. We explicitly never take a stand on whether or not it "counts" as there is dispute among the RSes and especially among the relevant experts.

If you're arguing that discussion of whether or not something "counts" as GoFR, then you would also, incidentally, be advocating for the removal of most of this page's content. Because very little of this article is based on MEDRSes.

Re: the current source for Alina Chan's quotation, it is already primarily about GoFR. "Gain of function" and "Gain-of-function" appear in that article a combined 32 times. It's in the headline, and several subheadings.

The source is primarily about the topic of this article. It may also include discussion of other topics, but GoFR is the main focus of the article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the FactCheck.org source, which is (1) not MEDRS and (2) not primarily about GoF. The title is "The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement" (my bolding). In other words, its only reason for talking about GoF is because of the lab leak conspiracy theory promoted by a US senator, which is a separate topic and should not be afforded serious weight in a BMI article unless and until MEDRS sources cover it significantly.

Most of this article (besides the recent COVID conspiracy stuff) is in fact based on MEDRS from what I can see. Can you point out any non-MEDRS sources that are used significantly in the rest of article? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, Can you point out any non-MEDRS sources that are used significantly in the rest of article? Sure.

• All of the Academic Advocacy Group section. It's primary sources, news sources.
• The United States section, again is primary sources and news sources.
• Academic Symposia, again full of primary sources.
• Experiments that have been referred to as "gain-of-function", again primary and news sources.

Just because a source has a doi, doesn't mean it is a MEDRS. There are plenty of sources in there that are actually news pieces, that are published in scientific journals, but are primarily journalism and not subject to peer review or true "scientific" editorial oversight. They are news pieces, and really good ones! But still news pieces. They do not meet MEDRS. Primary sources also usually do not meet MEDRS.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Gain-of-function studies of SARS

After quickly looking at the sources, I can see 3 main points here.

1. There were a couple of gain-of-function studies of viruses related to SARS-1. These papers: [14],[15]. Saying they did not include any gain-of-function research would be pretty much disingenuous, and fact checkers I think came to the same conclusion [16],[17]. We should say it on the page and describe results of these studies. That was a legitimate scientific research, regardless to the sources of their funding.
2. None of these studies was about SARS-2, and it would not be possible to artificially create SARS-2 from any viruses described in these studies. That should be emphasized. Some supporters of the "theory" had a point that such techniques can be used to create new viruses like SARS-2. Sure they can, but there is no any evidence that they actually were used for such purpose. This is a pure speculation at best.
3. The arguments about funding by the NIH are mostly a distraction. After looking at the fact-checking articles, it seems more likely that the part of 2nd study related to the gain of function was funded from Chinese sources. But it hardly matters that much, and should be mentioned only briefly. My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: your 1st point, it is not for us to decide whether or not these papers included GoFR. We must include the opinions of the experts in due weight to their coverage in the sources. That's what WP:DUE tells us to do. But yes I think a discussion of those viewpoints of the relevant experts belongs somewhere in this article. And that includes comments about the NIH's opinions on whether or not it counts as GoFR, as they are an expert body. Agree re: your 2nd point. Re your 3rd point, including the controversy about funding of that grant is only relevant if it comes up in the sources about this topic. Which I believe it does, but only tangentially. So we should only give it a passing mention.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

1st point. Since at least some experts believe that the papers included such research, we should describe all scientific results of these papers that are allegedly related to the gain of function. But also, let me disagree. Is not it our business to decide if a publication was on the subject of a page? If we can't, that's a problem. Personally, would not you agree that these papers [18],[19] include some gain of function research? I think this is plainly obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, my point is that our sources decide this for us. This is the entire point of WP:DUE. To solve exactly this type of issue. We include it if it's due, and I agree that this is. So we then ask ourselves "okay, is it the mainstream view that these are GoFR, or is there signficant debate?" Since every single RS about it talks about controversy and debate, and no consensus statements exist, and it's extremely under-covered in the scientific literature, we must presume there is debate. And thus we must include the views of experts on all sides, in due proportion to their weight in the reliable sources. We cannot use our personal judgment about that.

I would say that personally I think those two studies do not include any experiment which increases the ability of a virus to infect a human cell, since these viruses can already do it, and any modifications undertaken do not increase that ability.

Here's an analogy: Let's say I take a Porsche, a Ferrari, and a McLaren and I ask "okay, if I swap the engines on these, am I making them go faster than 60mph?" They all, already, go that fast. You're taking parts that didn't evolve to work together, and cutting and pasting them together. The resulting franken-cars will work less well, and rightly so. But then the question becomes "okay, can it be reasonable expected that cutting and pasting their engines like this will make one of them go faster than 60mph in some better way?" Like increase their 0 to 60 for instance. No one would reasonably expect that this copy and pasting would do so. And so then after you do the copying and pasting, did any of the frankencars go faster in some novel or better way? Also no. They basically all worked the same. Maybe some slightly worse, even.

Of course, this "type" of experiments could have bad results, like if you put a jet engine in a McLaren. But that's not what anyone did in these papers.

So then, you ask me, in the language of this analogy: "Were these dangerous experiments?" My follow up question is: "dangerous for whom?" For the car, yes. For the finish line? No. In this analogy, the finish line is the human, the car is the virus. Again, I understand why people have concerns, I'm just telling you my personal reasoning. And, again, I think for the purposes of the wiki, we must include the experiments as a topic of discussion that are heavily disputed. And describe what that dispute actually is about.

At the same time, of course I know that some experts disagree with my opinion, and thus we should still include the content with quotes from experts of all relevant opinions in due weight. I agree there are certainly experts who fit that bill, who agree with me and who disagree with me.

I'm arguing that we do what the WP:PAGs tell us to do. Not what our guts tell us to do.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think we focus too much on the controversies. We need to explain first what the actual research was about. For example, I think we should say first, as framed in one of the fact-checker articles, For instance, in 2017, WIV published a study that said researchers had found a coronavirus from a bat that could be transmitted directly to humans. WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric (man-made) viruses to replicate in — not just infect — a variety of cell lines. Or something similar. You think this is not a gain of function research - hmm... But this is fully consistent with your suggestion to follow the sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The analogy of 3 cars for chimeric research is good. Let's extend the analogy. The replicase gene is the engine of the car, and the spike gene is the frame. All the cars go 60 mph. The Porsche is a bulky car which has a large amount of air drag, in order to compensate it has a stronger engine to get to 60 mph. The Ferrari is a sleek aerodynamic car, and therefore uses a weaker engine to get to 60 mph. Let's do now some genetic mixing and matching. We take the Porsche's powerful engine and place it in the aerodynamically sleek Ferrari. Is the Frankencar we created going to go faster than 60 mph. "Was this a dangerous experiment?". --Guest2625 (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that paragraph is largely good, I agree with it and it is mostly NPOV, though we must replace “WIV” with “researchers from the Zhengli lab at the Wuhan institute of Virology.” And then refer to them as Hu et al. We also should remove “deliberately” as that is not NPOV, you’re already describing them doing it, you don’t need to say they weren’t doing it accidentally. One cannot accidentally use reverse genetics. It takes extreme skill, it would be like saying somebody “ deliberately” solved a puzzle. It’s implied. Saying it makes it sound as though there was dispute about the intentions of the experiment. The way you describe the chimeras also has unclear antecedents about which were backbones and which were the spike genes. It must be clear about this, as that’s an important aspect of the experiment and the goals of the experiment. It should also just say “replicate” no need to say “not just infect” as presumably our article will not be debating that right before.—Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I say “it would be like saying somebody “ deliberately” solved a puzzle. It’s implied. Saying it makes it sound as though there was dispute about the intentions of the experiment.” I mean that no one is disputing that the experiments were done deliberately. It implies there is malfeasance because you don’t say something happened “deliberately” unless it was bad. No one says “those folks over there “deliberately” helped the old lady cross the street.” They would just assume it. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you may have deliberately made a good point. I'd add that we can remove some of the language that casts doubt on almost certain facts. Maybe "... published a study in which researchers found a bat coronavirus ...". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

lol, yep. Agreed. We can perhaps replace it with “ [WIV] published a study describing coronaviruses sampled from bats, some of which they argued were capable of making the jump into humans (wiki link to zoonotic disease) .“ Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

But then you omit key part of what the source say, i.e. that WIV researchers used reverse genetics to deliberately create novel recombinants of wild bat coronavirus backbones and spike genes, then tested the ability of these chimeric man-made viruses to replicate in — not just infect — a variety of cell lines. . Also, by including "they argued" you cast doubt on validity of conclusions by researchers from WIV. Actually, no one disputed the validity of their results published in this paper. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That was about 2nd scientific paper cited at the beginning of the thread. 1st one should also be described. As per sources currently cited on the page (and the article itself), and especially the letter by Baric who led the project [20], that was a study focused on understanding the cross-species transmission potential of bat coronaviruses like SHC014... We never introduced mutations into the SHC014 [horseshoe bat coronavirus] spike to enhance growth in human cells, though the work demonstrated that bat SARS-like viruses were intrinsically poised to emerge in the future, ... These recombinant clones and viruses were never sent to China. Importantly, independent studies carried out by Italian scientists and others from around the world have confirmed that none of the bat SARS-like viruses studied at UNC were related to SARS-CoV-2, the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic.. Something about it to be included, although the ending is a little misleading (of course these viruses are related; just not that closely related). My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for misinterpreting your comment above. I took the italicized portion of your comment "For instance, in 2017, WIV..." to be suggested language and not a direct quote from a source. I do still think that we can remove redundant and potentially misleading language as part of the normal process of paraphrasing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we need to summarize it, but keep the meaning. We can also quote something directly. For example, this key finding as phrased by Baric in his letter: "the work demonstrated that bat SARS-like viruses were intrinsically poised to emerge in the future". My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

If I am understanding your first point correctly, you are advocating for: a general increase in the amount of description of actual GoFR and a specific inclusion of the 2017 study. Further, you feel that our description of the 2017 study should state that the WIV's creation of novel recombinants was 'deliberate', or a synonymous word. If that is an accurate summary of your views, I agree with everything but the last part, mainly for the reasons Shibbolethink stated above.

As for your point about the key finding, I agree that quote would relevant for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But I agree that "deliberate" should not be included per argument by Shibboleth.My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I agree with 99% of the above.

The only bone I have to pick is with whether we should describe the findings of the WIV paper as fact in "wiki voice." It isn't a secondary source, and unless we find a secondary source to support the finding that "the viruses are going to jump into humans in the future" or "the viruses are capable of jumping into humans in the future," then I don't think we should present it as settled science. I agree they proved that pretty darn convincingly. But with primary sources in science, the issue still exists that this work has not been replicated or critiqued in a secondary source, at least not one we're citing. It is still a PRIMARY source, so it should either A) be presented with slight hedging, such as "they argued X" or "they investigated X" or "they asserted X" or it should be presented with quotes/paraphrases attributed to individual scientists like the one you got from Baric. I agree with the one you got above, I think that's perfect for this purpose!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a review article if needed to avoid using "they said". In the review it states "While no cases of SARS have been reported since 2004, a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses was discovered in a cave in Yunnan, China, highlighting the necessity to prepare for future reemergence (50)". --Guest2625 (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Guest2625, that's quite useful, thank you!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this discussion and wanted to note there's a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory#Should_we_say,_in_wiki-voice,_that_the_WIV_was_conducting_"controversial_gain-of-function_research?". And I agree that the 2017 study was clearly GoFR, and deserves mention in this article. Stonkaments (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What I'm seeing in these papers (including ref 51 - "Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus", and the 2007 paper) is that researchers mixed the bodies of some viruses with the heads (spikes) of others, largely to see if the resulting combinations would infect humanized cells using the same method (ACE2 receptor) as most coronaviruses. They did this for multiple combinations and often discovered a few combinations would infect humanized cells. To me it's more important that readers understand this type of research was being conducted, not what label you give it. (I would certainly say it has the potential to significantly increase the deadliness of a virus, especiallly when multiple combinations are considered, but try to understand the definition of GoF is not 100% agreed upon). I would also note that ref 51 included NIH funding, to my understanding. 2601:5C4:4301:217C:680D:F80A:54A3:3C3B (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

2600:6C58:37F:5936:E941:CB67:65C1:A9C0 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Rand Paul has proven that Dr Fauci funded gain of function research. Also Rand Paul has proven that Dr Fauci has lied to Congress 10 to 12 including the bold face lie under oath in which Dr Fauci testified that he did NOT fund ‘gain of function research’. Lying to Congress is a felony and carries a penalty up to 5 years in prison.

Please edit the Wikipedia ASAP because currently this site is purporting clearly false information that is costing massive loss of life from politically motivated clear disinformation. This is a classic example of ‘disinformation’.

If your staff chooses not to correct the post then please email your basis of the decision to: herman.barnes@gmail.com

Please do the right thing here,

Herman Barnes 2600:6C58:37F:5936:E941:CB67:65C1:A9C0 (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Herman G Barnes III

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – bradv^🍁 02:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

GoF in congress

"Earlier this month, two members of US Congress from opposing parties joined forces to introduce a bill that would halt public funding of controversial research: the tweaking of viruses’ DNA to make them more dangerous." The Pausing Enhanced Pandemic Pathogen Research Act might need to be mentioned in Gain-of-function_research#Gain-of-function_research_moratorium https://www.ft.com/content/b328636c-1149-4562-aa6f-f1b0302d3ab9 70.191.102.240 (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia:Let the dust settle, and WP:NOTNP would tell us we should not overburden this article with small developments that are transient. Representatives introduce ~5,000 new bills to Congress each year, of which roughly 200 are passed into law. [21] We should wait to see if this bill even enters committee, or obtains prominent cosigners. Or is also introduced in the senate. Simply writing a bill is a mundane occurrence of the highest order. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Papers Reflecting WIV Research Being Conducted

After quickly looking at the above discussion, I will leave the "interpretation" of these studies to others.

Cui J, et. al. “Evolutionary relationships between bat coronaviruses and their hosts.” Emerg Infect Dis., Oct. 2007; 13(10):1526-32. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/10/07-0448_article

Difference in receptor usage between severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus and SARS-like coronavirus of bat origin Wuze Ren 1, Xiuxia Qu, Wendong Li, Zhenggang Han, Meng Yu, Peng Zhou, Shu-Yi Zhang, Lin-Fa Wang, Hongkui Deng, Zhengli Shi. Journal of Virology, 2007.

Sriram, Krishna, et al. “What Is the ACE2 Receptor, How Is It Connected to Coronavirus and Why Might It Be Key to Treating COVID-19? The Experts Explain.” The Conversation, 25 May 2021, https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-ace2-receptor-how-is-it-connected-to-coronavirus-and-why-might-it-be-key-to-treating-covid- 19-the-experts-explain-136928

Ge, Xing-Yi et al. “Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor.” Nature, 30 Oct. 2013, 503(7477): 535-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389864/

Hu, Ben, et. al. “Detection of diverse novel astroviruses from small mammals in China.” J Gen Virol. Nov 2014, 95(Pt 11): 2442-2449. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25034867/ Menachery, Vineet, et. al. “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.” Nat Med, 9 Nov. 2015, 21:1508–1513. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3985 Menachery

Yang, Xing-Lou et al. “Isolation and Characterization of a Novel Bat Coronavirus Closely Related to the Direct Progenitor of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus.” Journal of Virology, 30 Dec. 2015, 90(6): 3253-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2FJVI.02582-15

Menachery, Vineet, et al. “SARS-like WIV1-CoV poised for human emergence.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 14 March 2016, 113(11): 3048-53. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1517719113

“Inbred Strains: BALB.” MGI, www.informatics.jax.org/inbred_strains/mouse/docs/BALB.shtml. Menachery 2016.

Zeng, Lei-Ping et al. “Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1 Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response.” Journal of Virology, 24 June 2016, 90(14): 6573-6582. https://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2FJVI.03079-15 Hu, Ben et al. “Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides

2601:5C4:4301:217C:7C19:48B8:19C2:31A7 (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not engage in "interpretation of... studies" - we report what others interpret studies on. Talk pages are not to be used as a forum to discuss a topic in general, and your contribution here does not seem related to improving this article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: Zeng et al. (2016) does "interpret studies" by Ge et al. and Yang et al., though! WIV1 and WIV16 are two recently identified SL-CoV strains with high genomic similarity to human SARS-CoV. These two strains have been successfully cultured in vitro … (Ge et al. [2013], Yang et al. [2016]).

How many other examples can you find in this list? Do some seem directly related to the article topic? –Dervorguilla (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, I don't really see the point here. Unless one of these studies directly refers to an experiment being "Gain-of-function", then it would still be WP:OR interpretation to say that it was. We need review articles stating that something has been characterized that way. We need opinions of experts calling something GoF or not GoF. We cannot just decide that as editors without RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: In an email message to Forich on August 23, 2021, postdoctoral researcher Alina Chan said:

[W]e know that coronaviruses are being engineered quite frequently, including in Wuhan labs. NIH's reviewers and review process judged that the WIV-EHA work did not fall under the 2014 NIH GOFROC moratorium. The moratorium wording allowed for reviewers to decide what was or was not reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity. In fact, the same type of work continues to be funded by the US because the reviewers/review process continue not to see this type of work as GOFROC. The 2014 moratorium and 2017 framework have "no teeth" because their definition of GOFROC is deliberately narrow to avoid suppressing useful research, and the words "reasonably anticipated" and "voluntary" leave room for interpretation by reviewers. Nonetheless, it's important we acknowledge we are judging the work at the WIV using today's knowledge. Many top experts who call for more regulation of pathogen research continue to say that the term GOF is confusing and not meaningful for assessing risk. If you had asked anti-GOFROC people before 2019 if they thought the US-funded work at the WIV was GOFROC or not, I think you would've gotten a very mixed bag because many didn't see bat coronaviruses as particularly dangerous pathogens back then. However, the work was certainly not banned in the US or being secretly outsourced to China. It was proudly published online, and similar projects still continue to be judged as not GOFROC, funded, and proudly published online.

So if "one of these studies directly refers to an experiment" at WIV as being not GOFROC, can we cite it? –Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, also no, imo. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Collapse WP:POLEMIC— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We now know that Fauci lied to Congress when he said gain of function research was not conducted in the Wuhan lab funded by the NIH which was under his direction. As of October 2021 this information is public knowledge and Wikipedia needs to update this page. TRINITYNTB (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC) NIH Admits to Funding Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan, Says EcoHealth Violated Reporting Requirements - Yahoo News TRINITYNTB (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

When I first posted these studies many months ago I had hoped someone might summarize them in order that others might better understand the type of research being conducted at WIV. I feel that the research being conducted would be highly significant to the WIV COVID-19 section, especially if it showed the research was being conducted potentially created new coronavirus strains that could affect humans. I understand all are busy and that I have not undertaken such a summary either.

With that said, I don't understand the - well, perhaps the best kind word is negativity - towards these papers. They seem like the most natural way to understand the research being conducted. As for the assertion that wiki doesn't interpret studies, I understand the inclination to say it does not, and in many ways it should not, but as a practical matter decisions such as whether or not to summarize the studies, what portions are significant, where (and if) they fit within the overall page, are all matters of judgment. As another example, I have never heard of quoting from an academic paper as being labeled "original research." Wishing you well. Icrmowun (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a reason wikipedia only relies on secondary independent reviews to do that work for us. It removes some of that bias. We report what the experts say in secondarily reviewing primary work. We do not do that ourselves. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

New The Intercept Article

This statement in the wikipedia article might need to be tweaked. "NIH funding to the EcoHealth Alliance and later sub-contracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was not to support gain-of-function experiments, but instead to enable the collection of bat samples in the wild." From the intercept: "The plans triggered concerns at NIH. Two staff members — Jenny Greer, a grants management specialist, and Erik Stemmy, a program officer handling coronavirus research — wrote to EcoHealth Alliance to say that the experiments “appear to involve research covered under the pause,” referring to a temporary moratorium on funding for gain-of-function research that would be reasonably anticipated to make MERS and SARS viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in mammals." https://theintercept.com/2021/11/03/coronavirus-research-ecohealth-nih-emails/ 2600:1700:8660:E180:810F:4EE6:EF97:C7CB (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia, but please read WP:MEDRS. While I read The Intercept_ sometimes and I would accept them as a reliable source for politics, they're not a reliable source for medical information. --Nbauman (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Gain of function conspiracy theory

The issue of whether the virus originated from the Wuhan lab is not a conspiracy theory but is a serious debate. Calling it ‘conspiracy ‘ constitutes a opinion and comment. The objective fact is it’s a matter of scientific debate. The term conspiracy should be removed. Vosne (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Our highest quality sources indicate that the "bioweapons" and "gain of function research" theories of origin are accurately described as "conspiracy theories." [22] [23] [24] [25] In that sentence, we summarize what these sources say. Other versions of the lab-leak hypothesis are not accurately described this way, such as the accidental release of a natural virus. We cannot paint all versions of the theory with one broad brush, but we should accurately depict what words our sources use to describe each in turn. In this case, we are describing the versions which have been called "conspiracy theories."

Arguments that we should change what language we use must be based on the best available sources, which are equal to or better than the aforementioned sources. Otherwise it is original research, which is not permitted to dictate what we write on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree with Vosne and this has nothing to do with bioweapons. Scientists have been divided on this issue from the start, and this is being also being discussed on the lab leak page. Newer sources supersede any sources calling this unwarranted speculation or conspiracy theory. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Which newer sources are those? and do they meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources that meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but since this is a matter of science policy, and not science, that is hardly the sole sourcing criteria for covering this subject. I will compile a list of newer sources. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Since we currently use sources that meet SCHOLARSHIP, we must use WP:PARITY to determine the best quality sources to refute the claim. And SCHOLARSHIP does not only apply to science, it also applies to science policy. I think you may be confusing SCHOLARSHIP with MEDRS. SCHOLARSHIP applies to much more than BMI. Several recent papers have been published which continue to support the zoonotic hypothesis as the mainstream view, and this as a conspiracy theory. So I would caution you to make sure your source review also includes these, and does not adhere to a fringe POV. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If there are sources which meet SCHOLARSHIP, then you better WP:PROVEIT by citing them, here, instead of not at all subtly evading the question by saying that they're not necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

ePPP enhanced potential pandemic pathogen

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens

should the new term "ePPP" be talked about on this article, or should it be its own article with a "not to be confused with" tag here? 2603:800C:3101:D064:18A6:6458:7838:3B28 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Do any secondary reliable secondary sources use the term or talk about it? The NIH article you've linked is a primary source. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

With a quick Google search for "enhanced potential pandemic pathogen", I found lots of references from both *.gov sources and peer-reviewed, professional, WP:MEDRS sources. I think it's important to make it clear, in the lede, that ePPP is a subset of gain-of-function research. As the Nature article by Amber Dance pointed out, in its original meaning, "Gain of function might result in bacteria that are extra sensitive to potassium ions, for example, or an Arabidopsis plant with short stems and curly leaves." In other words, much or most gain-of-function research has nothing to do with virology, and has no risk whatsoever. The only risks are from research with pathogenic potential.

I think that if you're going to say in the lede that "Some forms of gain-of-function research ... carry inherent biosafety and biosecurity risks," you should also make it clear that some (or most) forms of gain-of-function research do not -- according to many WP:MEDRS like Nature.

Any objections? --Nbauman (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Nature 2021 article

I think this WP entry does not clearly distinguish between "gain of function" and "pathogens of pandemic potential". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the entry has no mention of gain of function that does not involve pathogens or risk of harm. When I did a PubMed search for "gain of function", I got a lot of innocuous research, like gain of function in gene variants on the thrombolytic cascade.

Here's a good recent article from Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x

The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research

The mystery of COVID’s origins has reignited a contentious debate about potentially risky studies and the fuzzy terminology that describes them.

Amber Dance

Nature

27 October 2021

It’s no surprise that politicians and scientists would disagree on GOF’s meaning, because it can mean different things in different contexts. At its most innocuous, GOF is a classic genetics term to describe mutations that give a gene, RNA or protein new abilities or expression patterns. Gain of function might result in bacteria that are extra sensitive to potassium ions5, for example, or an Arabidopsis plant with short stems and curly leaves6. A complementary approach — loss-of-function — involves disabling a gene to see what happens to organisms that lack it.

The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall, a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.

--Nbauman (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's a Wall Street Journal video which also makes the point that gain of function research is "the workhorse of modern biology" and is used for research that has nothing to do with infectious disease and doesn't have the same theoretical risks. While this is a YouTube video, it meets WP:RS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PzJJQa4fQQ

Supercharging Viruses? Gain of Function Research and the Hunt for Covid’s Origins

Sep 15, 2021

Daniella Hernandez

"Gain of function extends beyond infectious diseases to other fields. There it's not as controversial, because it doesn't carry the same public health risks. Gain of function research is the workhorse of modern biology, so it's unlikely that it will go away altogether."

--Nbauman (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

First Congressional Hearing

"Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., chaired a subcommittee hearing Wednesday on gain-of-function research that may be linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pictured: Paul questions Dr. Anthony Fauci during a Nov. 4 committee hearing about the ongoing response to the pandemic." - The Daily Signal, Aug 4, 2022 Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Signal is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. [26] [27] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) are leading the first congressional hearing on gain-of-function research as part of his ongoing efforts to investigate the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hearing comes amid intensifying Republican scrutiny on whether a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) caused the pandemic, as well as possible U.S. funding ties to the gain-of-function research at the facility. Gain-of-function involves enhancing a virus to make it more potent or transmissible." - NTD Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

GOF in cancer research

This article violates WP:WEIGHT by dealing almost exclusively with "pathogens of pandemic potential" and ignoring the more common research that don't involve the pandemic potential issue at all. For example, here's an article in the NEJM about how GOF is used to reprogram exhausted T-cells to produce effector cyctokines against cancer again:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMcibr2203616
Turbocharging the T Cell to Fight Cancer
Andrea Schietinger
N Engl J Med
2022 Jun 16;386(24):2334-2336.
PMID: 35648702
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcibr2203616

Why doesn't this Wikipedia entry point out (as the Nature article did) that PPP are only a subset (maybe a small subset) of GOF research?

--Nbauman (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You are free to edit it so that it does so. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm tired of getting into edit wars. --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

GoF alters "organism" or pathogen

In the lede, we describe gain of function as "research that genetically alters an organism". I would like to discuss changing the word "organism" to either "pathogen" or "infectious agent", as much gain of function research is done on viruses, which are not universally regarded as organisms. Poppa shark (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

GoF as a term does not only refer to pathogens. It also refers to experiments done on zebrafish, cancer cells, frogs, mice, etc. Just because that is the most popular public usage does not mean that is how we refer to it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects the scholarly sources on every subject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that's a fair response. Do you have any ideas for the article to demonstrate that it can include research done on viruses, while also including non-infectious organisms? Poppa shark (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think it needs a large expansion on the non-pathogen parts of GoF describing what makes something GoF vs "GoF research of concern" AKA "GoFRoC" See the above section. If I had the time on my hands I would do it myself. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, please follow WP:BRD. You have made two reverts [28] [29] restoring your preferred use of the term "organism" despite most sources referring to "pathogens", including most of the sources already cited on this page, and the new source I added. The Huntington's disease study you added [30] is a WP:PRIMARY source, and is more relevant for Mutation#By_effect_on_function than this article, which is about pathogen research. Even the new NIH definition refers to it primarily as pathogen research. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

ScrumptiousFood, you appear to have BRD backward, at least when it comes to "organism" vs. "pathogen". The former has been in the article for a long time, and your change to "pathogen" was the bold edit. Please self-revert during discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

When it comes to "organism" vs. "pathogen", I agree with Poppa shark, as most of our sources refer to this in relation to experimentation on pathogens and microorganisms. If you have studies relating to GoF research with zebrafish, cancer cells, frogs, mice, I suggest you add those to another more relevant article. Adding the Huntington's disease study to expand the scope of this article was the bold move I was referring to. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You might be right about "most of our sources", but you've certainly not made your case yet. In the meantime, you're definitely wrong about BRD, and your preferred version is only up due to your willingness to edit war. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

My replacing of "organism" with "pathogen" was BOLD, but so was Shibbolethink's addition of a new source expanding the scope of this article. You may revert to organism, but I must note that while it may be longstanding, was not discussed when Shibbolethink first added it, without the required citations [31]. I am willing to discuss sources on this talk page but please refrain from casing aspirations about edit warring. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I went back to the version before Shibbolethink's edits. I'd love to know from you how we can determine if most sources use the narrower definition of GoF. Shibbolethink, would you be amenable to re-including your content in other parts of the article? At a glance, the placement that early in the lead seemed undue. Are there secondary sources that give an overview of the kinds of research that are commonly described as GoF? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the issue of pathogens vs organisms, with the issue of GoF vs GoFRoC. While there is a consensus that not all GoF is GoFRoC, and that not all pathogens are ePPP, the general term for the research has now stuck, and is covered by reliable sources in relation to pathogen research only. Studies on Huntington's disease don't belong anywhere in this article, even if a gain-of-function was involved. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Studies on Huntington's disease don't belong anywhere in this article, even if a gain-of-function was involved Why do you get to decide that? These sources use the phrase "gain-of-function" as understood by scientists? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not "expanding the scope of this article" as the current title includes this scope. That the current article does not reflect the scope is a problem several other users have pointed out correctly on this talk page in several different sections... — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@ScrumptiousFood
this article about Huntington's is a REVIEW. which makes it a secondary source perfectly suited for inclusion on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agree the topic of this article is primarily about pathogen research. There are other articles more relevant for the topic of experiments performed on zebrafish, cancer cells, frogs, mice, etc. GoF is the WP:COMMONNAME for this kind of pathogen research, and though GoFRoC and ePPP may be the more correct scientific terminology, scientists are divided on where the draw the line between them is drawn. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Removing PRIMARY source and adding NIH source - @ScrumptiousFood every source I added was an academic scholarly review, which are secondary sources and considered superior to news-based sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Restore Shibbolethink's latest changes, and the scope of this article is broad gain of function research, not just GoFRoC. His changes are well-cited (two review articles, look on PubMed) and within the scope of this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"the general term for the research has now stuck, and is covered by reliable sources in relation to pathogen research only." User:ScrumptiousFood, please provide WP:RS for this statement. I don't think it's "now stuck." When I searched PubMed for "gain of function", out of the most recent 100 hits, no more than 3 or 4 had anything to do with pathogen research. --Nbauman (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)