Talk:Gain-of-function research

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

Any and all Genetic Modification is Gain of Function

The term "Gain of Function" (GoF) is a misnomer; any genetic alteration of an organism, including the modification of a micro-organism is GoF. What Fauci, Daszak, Lane,. and others commit is better described as (evil) augmentation, apparently for profit, population control - and infamy. But there is more than that to there workings. Sadly, pos writing rubbish on wiki enable criminals like those mentioned above to flourish at the expense of innocent peoples lives, health and livelihoods. 90.192.92.92 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

any genetic alteration. So loss of function would be gain of function research? Dunno about that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Six of the six mice..."

Surely "All of the six mice" 2601:CF:300:4B70:F9:2F77:5234:5134 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

sure! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

PLOS article on NIH-funded GOF at Wuhan

Here's the article that Rand Paul showed Fauci in his Congressional testimony, to support his claim that the US funded gain of function research at Wuhan:

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

Hu B, Zeng L-P, Yang X-L, Ge X-Y, Zhang W, Li B, et al.

Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus.

PLoS Pathog 13(11): e1006698.

November 30, 2017

Doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

and here's a discussion of the paper arguing that Rand Paul was wrong, by Daniel Wilson, PhD, who runs a website devoted to correcting COVID-19 misinformation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGaqSoyv8Y0

Fauci did not fund gain of function research in China

--Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 Gain-of-Function research updates

NIH deputy director Richard Tabak recently confirmed in congressional testimony that the NIH did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab as reported by Forbes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxGN8el7MA4&ab_channel=ForbesBreakingNews (relevant timestamp at 45:01)

Congresswoman Lesko: "Dr. Tabak, did NIH fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth?"

Dr. Richard Tabak: "It depends on your definition of gain-of function research. If you're speaking about the generic term, yes we did, because- but this is research, the generic term goes on in many many labs around the country, it is not regulated, and the reason it is not regulated is because it poses no harm or threat to anybody.

This is a substantial department from what is written in this article and what was the general consensus prior to this hearing. As is stated in direct quotes in this article, the previous consensus was there was absolutely 0 NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the WIH.

"the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research [conducted at] the Wuhan Institute of Virology" (Quoting from this article, which is quoting Dr. Anthony Fauci)

Now, the stated position of the NIH is that there was NIH-funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but was only of a "generic form" of gain of function research. This is of course a substantial departure from previous statements made, unless Tabak has severely misspoke here, which I don't think has happened. As such I'm unsure how to present the current position of the NIH without substantively contradicting what was said before.

I'll make an edit adding the most recent evidence and testimony, but am happy to discuss it further. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)