Nice set of rules. Reminds me of Dan Brown's plot in "Angels and Demons". On reflection, perhaps Asimov's Four Laws could be repurposed simply by substituting "researchers" for "robots"!?
"The laws are as follows: “(1) a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; (3) a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.” Asimov later added another rule, known as the fourth or zeroth law, that superseded the others. It stated that “a robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”
I do not see much in the way of accountability coming out of the COVID-19 post-mortems. China stopped travel from Wuhan to other Chinese cities but permitted air travel from Wuhan all over the world, thus turning a local outbreak into a world-wide pandemic. China has not been held to account for this evil act. EcoHealth Alliance is reportedly still receiving funding and still pursuing their original goals with obsessive fervor. The conflicts of interest that led government scientists to push expensive treatments for which they received hidden royalties from Big Pharma companies (rather than cheaper off-label drugs) have not been resolved. Debates on treatments, lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates and social distancing still rage with no conclusions. It is difficult to see how humankind has learned anything from the last pandemic so I am discouraged to see how the response to the next one will be any different.
Your rules are common sense. What scares me is this trend of calling everything that does not fit the narrative it’s misinformation and therefore subject to large fines and censorship. If you agreed with the lab leak theory your a spreader of misinformation. France just passed a law to make it a crime subject to fines of up to 45000 Euros and three years in prison for debunking an approved medical treatment. Indeed a slippery slope. What’s next you be the judge?
I fail to see what public benefit can be derived from creating a new pathogen, which is what the scientists did. The best outcome is that they can develop its antidote so if it the pathogen is released, the damage is limited. But without the pathogen in the first place, there is zero damage. However, considerable private benefit accrued from the development and release of the pathogen as that led (astonishingly quickly!) to the development and distribution of the "vaccines" under Emergency Use Authorisation, without which the novel technology would have cost a lot more to come to market, and indeed might never have done so. Which leads me to believe that the release of the virus was deliberate.
Roger - great post and a good initial set of recommendations. I would add that whomever is funding the research could be held liable if things go wrong. That would get them to really think about the costs vs benefits etc. Billionaires are throwing millions here and there... and if a whoopsy happens...
I also predict that the sale of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard!) signs will skyrocket! ;-)
I'm disinclined to trust that the WHO's Pandemic Agreement 'umbrella' can ever serve to keep us gerbils from getting hosed. Too many interested parties, too much money being funneled into both transparent as well as Very Opaque programs for clandestine research, no accountability for non-member entities that might - or might not - become known for their activities.
I, too, an dubious about a WHO agreement. Given its poor performance in the first year or two of Covid, esp. kowtowing to the Chinese, it's hard to have confidence in anything coming out of this. Further, while there are reports about "progress," I'm having the devil's own time finding the latest text. Hard to credit the WHO's claim to transparency when I can't find the document!
"Gain of Function" research is, through and through, research in bio-warfare agents. The research may, as a side effect, deliver a vaccine for the weaponized microbe but the chance of the microbe in nature spontaneously evolving along the same path as the human-directed changes to the microbe so as to make the vaccine useful in a "natural" pandemic is non-existent.
This is an outstanding article and I agree 100% with your recommended criteria for allowing such research. The current situtation is indefensible. We allow the scientists themselves to decide what experiments are acceptable, and allow them to be done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 containment. That more or less guarantees a future pandemic like COVID-19, or worse.
The principles are great.. I only see that scientists would disagree on how applicable the principles are to any given research project. How to get the right mix of knowledgeable scientists and concerned members of the public to make those judgments and reach agreement? Needless to say, documentation of their discussions should be available to the public without FOIA. Perhaps opportunities for public comment on each project. And thanks for the link to Marburger's speech. Still true and valid today.
"Simple probability tells us that over time, a research-related incident that leads to a pandemic is inevitable."
As occurred in 2019. Not sure why you use qualifiers, the released messages showing Fauci directing the creation of the "Proximal Origins" paper regarding covid 19 should put that to bed. As noted, the researchers who produced this paper had research grants before Fauci and they internally thought lab leak was most likely.
Nice set of rules. Reminds me of Dan Brown's plot in "Angels and Demons". On reflection, perhaps Asimov's Four Laws could be repurposed simply by substituting "researchers" for "robots"!?
"The laws are as follows: “(1) a robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; (2) a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; (3) a robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.” Asimov later added another rule, known as the fourth or zeroth law, that superseded the others. It stated that “a robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Three-Laws-of-Robotics
I do not see much in the way of accountability coming out of the COVID-19 post-mortems. China stopped travel from Wuhan to other Chinese cities but permitted air travel from Wuhan all over the world, thus turning a local outbreak into a world-wide pandemic. China has not been held to account for this evil act. EcoHealth Alliance is reportedly still receiving funding and still pursuing their original goals with obsessive fervor. The conflicts of interest that led government scientists to push expensive treatments for which they received hidden royalties from Big Pharma companies (rather than cheaper off-label drugs) have not been resolved. Debates on treatments, lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates and social distancing still rage with no conclusions. It is difficult to see how humankind has learned anything from the last pandemic so I am discouraged to see how the response to the next one will be any different.
Your rules are common sense. What scares me is this trend of calling everything that does not fit the narrative it’s misinformation and therefore subject to large fines and censorship. If you agreed with the lab leak theory your a spreader of misinformation. France just passed a law to make it a crime subject to fines of up to 45000 Euros and three years in prison for debunking an approved medical treatment. Indeed a slippery slope. What’s next you be the judge?
I fail to see what public benefit can be derived from creating a new pathogen, which is what the scientists did. The best outcome is that they can develop its antidote so if it the pathogen is released, the damage is limited. But without the pathogen in the first place, there is zero damage. However, considerable private benefit accrued from the development and release of the pathogen as that led (astonishingly quickly!) to the development and distribution of the "vaccines" under Emergency Use Authorisation, without which the novel technology would have cost a lot more to come to market, and indeed might never have done so. Which leads me to believe that the release of the virus was deliberate.
Roger - great post and a good initial set of recommendations. I would add that whomever is funding the research could be held liable if things go wrong. That would get them to really think about the costs vs benefits etc. Billionaires are throwing millions here and there... and if a whoopsy happens...
I also predict that the sale of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard!) signs will skyrocket! ;-)
I'm disinclined to trust that the WHO's Pandemic Agreement 'umbrella' can ever serve to keep us gerbils from getting hosed. Too many interested parties, too much money being funneled into both transparent as well as Very Opaque programs for clandestine research, no accountability for non-member entities that might - or might not - become known for their activities.
I, too, an dubious about a WHO agreement. Given its poor performance in the first year or two of Covid, esp. kowtowing to the Chinese, it's hard to have confidence in anything coming out of this. Further, while there are reports about "progress," I'm having the devil's own time finding the latest text. Hard to credit the WHO's claim to transparency when I can't find the document!
"Gain of Function" research is, through and through, research in bio-warfare agents. The research may, as a side effect, deliver a vaccine for the weaponized microbe but the chance of the microbe in nature spontaneously evolving along the same path as the human-directed changes to the microbe so as to make the vaccine useful in a "natural" pandemic is non-existent.
This is an outstanding article and I agree 100% with your recommended criteria for allowing such research. The current situtation is indefensible. We allow the scientists themselves to decide what experiments are acceptable, and allow them to be done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 containment. That more or less guarantees a future pandemic like COVID-19, or worse.
The principles are great.. I only see that scientists would disagree on how applicable the principles are to any given research project. How to get the right mix of knowledgeable scientists and concerned members of the public to make those judgments and reach agreement? Needless to say, documentation of their discussions should be available to the public without FOIA. Perhaps opportunities for public comment on each project. And thanks for the link to Marburger's speech. Still true and valid today.
"Simple probability tells us that over time, a research-related incident that leads to a pandemic is inevitable."
As occurred in 2019. Not sure why you use qualifiers, the released messages showing Fauci directing the creation of the "Proximal Origins" paper regarding covid 19 should put that to bed. As noted, the researchers who produced this paper had research grants before Fauci and they internally thought lab leak was most likely.
Its just all so dirty.