I agree in principle, but consider this: no matter where COVID came from, it is obvious that it has only been able to spread so widely because of international travel. Should airlines have to buy insurance for the disease they spread? HIV or COVID wouldn't have gone global had everyone just stayed where they are.
“not least because the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are not yet settled, and the possibility that it may have resulted from risky research remains a possibility. ”
We are at 99% sure of lab leak.
And this Kristian Andersen should spend his life scrubbing toilets and never have any responsibility for anything ever, except what order to scrub the toilets in.
Fauci wouldn’t have worked so hard behind the scenes to kill the theory, all the while denying he was doing exactly that if there wasn’t a raging inferno in his pants.
I should know the answer to your question, but (and I'm embarrassed to say this) I don't remember. I licensed hydropower, radioactive waste, and rail facilities. Also worked on the Keystone XL pipeline NEPA analysis for a state agency. There, accidents were "considered" inasmuch as yes, they happen, and the analysis examined what measures the applicant would take to (a) prevent, (b) mitigate such accidents. No risk analysis, per se, was done. Risk is, after all, a relative measure. Among the steps proposed by the applicant were a comprehensive pressure monitoring system, training and equipment for local emergency providers, area-wide warning systems, and others. I never, ever worked with an applicant who underplayed risk or who cut corners or pooh-poohed public concerns, but I worked for a number of agencies who outweighed the risk over the benefits.
In licensing the radioactive waste facility, the agency essentially adapted the position of "zero-tolerance" for emissions, an impossible standard. In the end, the courts agreed that it was impossible, and it cost the state $145.3 million dollars!
I am not a scientist but have great interest in this subject as I am a human being with a reasonable chance of dying from the next lab accident. My opinion thus is just as important as those of virologists, as they have severe conflicts of interest. I believe a lab leak was a likely cause of the COVID19 pandemic, but let's say it was a 50% chance that LL was the cause. Millions dead (25 million?), $16 trillion. Maybe next time it's 50 million, 100 million, 500 million?
Considering this, GoF is just too risky. Possible benefits are immensely outweighed by the risks. But....maybe some extreme sort of regulation could be developed to greatly reduce the risks. I like the idea of a lab that is at a higher level than BSL-5, maybe on an island somewhere dedicated to this research only, and anybody leaving the island has to quarantine for 2-4 weeks before departing, to guarantee they are not infected. The island could be a relatively nice place, with sports facilities, etc., but researchers would have only this option for doing this research. Drug companies might be free to participate on the island if they are providing funding.
How to keep China from doing this risky research? I have no idea.
I would also implement extreme criminal penalties for anybody doing this work outside of the laws, the same way as there would be extreme criminal penalties to work on developing a nuclear weapon in your basement.
I’m going to read the article that you linked that is opposed to any such research, because this is where I begin on this topic.
In my humble opinion, the only reason we need to develop a vaccine for a pathogen created in the lab is because such pathogen is expected to be used against a specific enemy or population.
How do governments keep it from just being another TRIA program (terrorism) where governments are absorbing a good portion of the loss anyway?
And then there is the issue over officially declaring the events: act of terrorism, act of (cyber)war, "lab leak" because of the geopolitical implications.
I major benefit though may just be in getting a third party involved to improve transparency and some accountability in what is going on.
So, I come from a NEPA perspective here. NEPA is our governing statute that formalizes the analysis of benefits and costs to the environment. It's a structure that thousands, perhaps millions of people across the country are familiar with. It would require writing and public comment on the perceived rewards of different types of GOF research. Alternative approaches could be analyzed and public comment taken. Asking people for their opinions without that kind of up-front analysis does not seem all that useful to me.. it doesn't feel in line with other kinds of government programs.
I used to work in USG research administration and the line was "we don't have to do NEPA because these things will never escape".. and yet some do and have been successfully contained but others may not be. Which reminds me of nuclear power.. there could be accidents.. I'd think that those would be analyzed in the NEPA doc, not with a statement that they are unlikely or rare.. specifically what actions are being taken to not have an accident happen, and one interpretation of the current proposed NEPA regs would require those to be legal and monitored requirements. In other words, inspections of what is going on (not sure NIH does that now).
Given that a decision would be made among these alternatives, then I would agree with your insurance requirement. What insurance can't do is balance the public benefit part .. only the risk part. So I think start with an EIS and then, if the decision is made that on the balance it is to the benefit of the public to conduct various forms of this research, then use your insurance idea.
I'm not sure NEPA would apply here, as there is no Federal nexus other than funding. Universities do federal research all the time without a NEPA document. The general NEPA process is good; in this case, I'm not sure public participation would allow any sort of meaningful progress. I've also seen a NEPA process conclude an action had no significant impacts and was within regulatory standards, but the State director denied the permit on the basis of "regulatory interpretation." In other words, my boss (the governor) doesn't like it, so I won't let it happen.
When implemented fairly and objectively, NEPA is a good process; but it has also been "weaponized" by professional anti's. Much like NEPA is now being abused by insisting on downstream climate effects (not required by regs).
Note that the possibility of accidental releases are not considered. I agree that NEPA can be weaponized, and that some courts ask for quite silly levels of putative "climate impact" analysis. But the structure of open discussion of potential impacts.. and alternatives- I think can give the public and decision makers a greater depth of understanding than less formalized procedures.
Thanks. I've never worked under NSF regs (mostly Corps, BuRec, FERC & STB) so didn't know about the funding nexus. Every agency has its nuances as to how 40 CFR 1500 is interpreted and/or implemented. I completely agree with you that the NEPA process is solid, and if done objectively, the public participation can provide a better informed decision.
Actually, it appears most external (and perhaps internal) research is excluded from NEPA because they assume there will be no escapes (I worked in ge organisms). But I wonder how analysis for Corps, BuRec, FERC etc. handles the possibility of accidents? Of course generally you are not licensing new dams.. or facilities.. or are they? I wonder how NRC NEPA handles it?
So how to apply this public interest oriented, rational approach to something like, say, climate policy, where the cost-benefit analysis has been ignored, if not outright inverted.
This goes far, far beyond just high risk bioengineering or bioweapons research. This is a case of overt and deliberate genocide, it was not accidental, it was obviously deliberate, well planned and imposed with a viciousness that only the worst of Psychopaths would direct. Many of the most knowledgeable, the best & brightest have declared that to be the truth.
The Davos Bankster gang are just lovin' their plandemic. They give $billions in gifts to any country that follows their nutball draconian covid lockdown policies, and the 4 countries that refused, 3 of their leaders were assassinated, and 1 was color revolutioned. They staged Event 201 wargame of a corona pandemic in Oct 2019, usual suspects Gates, Rockefeller & CIA. And Fauci stated in 2017 that Trump would have a pandemic in his term.
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, Archbishop Carlo Vigano who has the connections to the powerful warned about what is happening:
"“I call upon rulers, political and religious leaders, intellectuals and all people of good will, inviting them to unite in an Alliance that launches an anti-globalist manifesto….”
"...For two years now we have been witnessing a global coup d’état, in which a financial and ideological elite has succeeded in seizing control of part of national governments, public and private institutions, the media, the judiciary, politicians and religious leaders.
All of these, without distinction, have become enslaved to these new masters who ensure power, money and social affirmation to their accomplices.
Fundamental rights, which up until yesterday were presented as inviolable, have been trampled underfoot in the name of an emergency: today a health emergency, tomorrow an ecological emergency and after that an internet emergency..."
Notice the Pentagon is already warning of a massive Cyberattack from supposedly China. We've already seen the Climate Change "Emergency" Alarmist hype.
Evo Morales: "...I continue having doubts about …corona virus. I read…a report from the IMF that said…it’s important to reduce unnecessary population, & who are they? The old, the disabled, poor people, the working class. It looks like, brothers & sisters, that this pandemic is part of a biological war. Let the poor die, the old die, the disabled die.. It looks like… this pandemic is part of a biological war…”
This is Evo Morales, the former President of Bolivia that the U.S helped coup out of his own country.
Another clue was the Iranian leadership who were badly affected by Covid right at the very beginning of the plandemic. Even before Italy. So how did Covid spread so early to the holy city of Qom in Iran which had negligible Chinese, unlike Italy which had Chinese garment workers? Ron Unz wrote a lot about it:
"...Most of these early cases had occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected[35] and at least a dozen of its officials and politicians[36] dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior[37]. Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting.."
"... initial Iranian outbreak was also strangely centered on the Holy City of Qom, the home of that country’s elite political and religious leadership rather than in the far larger metropolis of Tehran....Wuhan is some 5,500 kilometers from Qom, so the latter city would hardly seem the most likely location for the next major appearance of the virus...By March additional major Covid outbreaks had also occurred in Northern Italy and soon afterwards Spain, but the circumstances were quite different. According to Wikipedia, some 300,000 Chinese[38] live and work in that Italian region while another 150,000 Chinese reside in Spain[39], ...By contrast, Iran’s total Chinese population is one of the smallest in the world, numbering just 5,000-9,000[40], and overwhelmingly concentrated in Tehran rather than Qom...."
So, yeah this was planned. It was much more than a Lab Leak. This was deliberate bio-warfare against the Earth's population. As bad a crime as it gets. No prosecutions or even criminal investigations for mass murder.
Science is, at bottom, formalized curiosity: "run and find out" and many scientists, like Anderson, bristle at any restrictions on pursuing his curiosity.
Let's step back. What benefit is there to "gain of function" research? The work itself manipulates a pathogen to make it more virulent, more contagious. To what end? Nature itself rolls the genetic dice to come up with features that may be those things but the features born in the lab are bogglingly unlikely to be those features that Nature comes up with so, for instance, a vaccine based on a lab-invented germ can have only one use: as part of a bio-warfare program. The vaccine developed based on an invented germ is unlikely to have the features needed to identify and neutralize the natural germ. It -may- be insurance against a lab accident but that's it. It's most likely an adjunct to a covert bio-war program
re: "Of course, such characterizations are usually complicated by the fact that different stakeholders have preferences for how they’d like the decision to be made well before any such benefit-risk characterization." Preferences are not complications, at least not any more than quantifying the risks and the benefits. Preferences are an integral part of decision making. How would you evaluate the tradeoff(s) between the (quantified) risks and benefits without knowing the preferences? Impossible.
That said, thanks very much for THB, to which I am a happy subscriber. There is so much BS, arguments motivated by politics and ideology rather than science (and preferences). THB is a key source of information for me. Thanks Roger.
It's hard to fathom that an insurance company would issue a policy to a US Government agency funding clearly dangerous research that is subcontracted to a private US company that then subcontracts part of that research to a Chinese Government Lab that has been repeatedly cited for unsafe practices.
I like the concept of "insurability", even if only as a thought experiment. However, this clearly would not have affected our recent Covid-19 FUBAR, as all involved strenuously denied involvement in GoF research even though there are lots of indications that not only was there GoF research going on, but it was funded by our own St. Fauci.
A better model for regulating such risky endeavors might be explicit personal responsibility (and by that I mean 'your honor, your fortune, and your life'), but until there is a public hanging, no amount of verbiage or pontification will make any difference
I'm a firm believer that insurance premiums should be linked to risks.
Take the Colorado front range. Compared to 50 years ago, the quantity, quality and value of new homes in the mountains west of Boulder have increase significantly, and with that growth, the risk of devastating wildfires. Do the insurance premiums not only cover the dwellingd, if lost, but present a barrier to building entry that helps mitigate the exposure risk?
Just like budgeting for projects, growth can be stimulated by incentives or de-incentivized by taxes and regulation.
As in the cases you mention, a good understanding of the real potential risks helps set the decision making process.
While I agree completely with you in regards to weather/terrain issues like homes on the front range, homes in coastal areas prone to hurricanes, and homes in flood plains, I do NOT agree with you that this model can be applied to politicians and nation-states. Both entities are adept at avoiding/redirecting/obfuscating responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone mistakes like having a GoF virus escape from a poorly designed and supervised lab and causing a pandemic that killed millions. From the politician's POV the actual risks are very probably seen as minimal - the blame can always be shifted to somewhere/someone else, so why not? OTOH the rewards, in terms of power and money can be quite high, so again, why not? As I said before, until there are public hangings.....
"...politicians and nation-states. Both entities are adept at avoiding/redirecting/obfuscating responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone mistakes like having a GoF virus escape from a poorly designed and supervised lab and causing a pandemic that killed millions."
Boy howdy now there's and understatement if ever I saw one! Then there's:
"Consider that the economic impacts of Covid-19 have been estimated at $16 trillion, while capital in the reinsurance market (2022) was $638 billion. Any agreement to require liability insurance for risky research would thus also need to be accompanied by a agreed upon cap on that liability."
Seems unlikely that could ever be achieved what with global estimated total GDP for 2022 around US $95 trillion with the US contributing ~ 25% of that.
How many pandemics does it take to kill a civilization?
I agree in principle, but consider this: no matter where COVID came from, it is obvious that it has only been able to spread so widely because of international travel. Should airlines have to buy insurance for the disease they spread? HIV or COVID wouldn't have gone global had everyone just stayed where they are.
Where does it end?
“not least because the origins of SARS-CoV-2 are not yet settled, and the possibility that it may have resulted from risky research remains a possibility. ”
We are at 99% sure of lab leak.
And this Kristian Andersen should spend his life scrubbing toilets and never have any responsibility for anything ever, except what order to scrub the toilets in.
Can you back the 99% claim with evidence?
Nope, just common sense.
Fauci wouldn’t have worked so hard behind the scenes to kill the theory, all the while denying he was doing exactly that if there wasn’t a raging inferno in his pants.
You also get to choose what you believe.
I’ll stick with logic and common sense.
I should know the answer to your question, but (and I'm embarrassed to say this) I don't remember. I licensed hydropower, radioactive waste, and rail facilities. Also worked on the Keystone XL pipeline NEPA analysis for a state agency. There, accidents were "considered" inasmuch as yes, they happen, and the analysis examined what measures the applicant would take to (a) prevent, (b) mitigate such accidents. No risk analysis, per se, was done. Risk is, after all, a relative measure. Among the steps proposed by the applicant were a comprehensive pressure monitoring system, training and equipment for local emergency providers, area-wide warning systems, and others. I never, ever worked with an applicant who underplayed risk or who cut corners or pooh-poohed public concerns, but I worked for a number of agencies who outweighed the risk over the benefits.
In licensing the radioactive waste facility, the agency essentially adapted the position of "zero-tolerance" for emissions, an impossible standard. In the end, the courts agreed that it was impossible, and it cost the state $145.3 million dollars!
I am not a scientist but have great interest in this subject as I am a human being with a reasonable chance of dying from the next lab accident. My opinion thus is just as important as those of virologists, as they have severe conflicts of interest. I believe a lab leak was a likely cause of the COVID19 pandemic, but let's say it was a 50% chance that LL was the cause. Millions dead (25 million?), $16 trillion. Maybe next time it's 50 million, 100 million, 500 million?
Considering this, GoF is just too risky. Possible benefits are immensely outweighed by the risks. But....maybe some extreme sort of regulation could be developed to greatly reduce the risks. I like the idea of a lab that is at a higher level than BSL-5, maybe on an island somewhere dedicated to this research only, and anybody leaving the island has to quarantine for 2-4 weeks before departing, to guarantee they are not infected. The island could be a relatively nice place, with sports facilities, etc., but researchers would have only this option for doing this research. Drug companies might be free to participate on the island if they are providing funding.
How to keep China from doing this risky research? I have no idea.
I would also implement extreme criminal penalties for anybody doing this work outside of the laws, the same way as there would be extreme criminal penalties to work on developing a nuclear weapon in your basement.
It's time to stop playing games with this crap.
Fascinating article Roger.
Thank you.
I’m going to read the article that you linked that is opposed to any such research, because this is where I begin on this topic.
In my humble opinion, the only reason we need to develop a vaccine for a pathogen created in the lab is because such pathogen is expected to be used against a specific enemy or population.
Which is insanity.
How do governments keep it from just being another TRIA program (terrorism) where governments are absorbing a good portion of the loss anyway?
And then there is the issue over officially declaring the events: act of terrorism, act of (cyber)war, "lab leak" because of the geopolitical implications.
I major benefit though may just be in getting a third party involved to improve transparency and some accountability in what is going on.
So, I come from a NEPA perspective here. NEPA is our governing statute that formalizes the analysis of benefits and costs to the environment. It's a structure that thousands, perhaps millions of people across the country are familiar with. It would require writing and public comment on the perceived rewards of different types of GOF research. Alternative approaches could be analyzed and public comment taken. Asking people for their opinions without that kind of up-front analysis does not seem all that useful to me.. it doesn't feel in line with other kinds of government programs.
I used to work in USG research administration and the line was "we don't have to do NEPA because these things will never escape".. and yet some do and have been successfully contained but others may not be. Which reminds me of nuclear power.. there could be accidents.. I'd think that those would be analyzed in the NEPA doc, not with a statement that they are unlikely or rare.. specifically what actions are being taken to not have an accident happen, and one interpretation of the current proposed NEPA regs would require those to be legal and monitored requirements. In other words, inspections of what is going on (not sure NIH does that now).
Given that a decision would be made among these alternatives, then I would agree with your insurance requirement. What insurance can't do is balance the public benefit part .. only the risk part. So I think start with an EIS and then, if the decision is made that on the balance it is to the benefit of the public to conduct various forms of this research, then use your insurance idea.
I'm not sure NEPA would apply here, as there is no Federal nexus other than funding. Universities do federal research all the time without a NEPA document. The general NEPA process is good; in this case, I'm not sure public participation would allow any sort of meaningful progress. I've also seen a NEPA process conclude an action had no significant impacts and was within regulatory standards, but the State director denied the permit on the basis of "regulatory interpretation." In other words, my boss (the governor) doesn't like it, so I won't let it happen.
When implemented fairly and objectively, NEPA is a good process; but it has also been "weaponized" by professional anti's. Much like NEPA is now being abused by insisting on downstream climate effects (not required by regs).
Yes the federal nexus is funding. Here's what nsf asks for https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/papp/pappg17_1/environimpacts_checklist.pdf
Note that the possibility of accidental releases are not considered. I agree that NEPA can be weaponized, and that some courts ask for quite silly levels of putative "climate impact" analysis. But the structure of open discussion of potential impacts.. and alternatives- I think can give the public and decision makers a greater depth of understanding than less formalized procedures.
Thanks. I've never worked under NSF regs (mostly Corps, BuRec, FERC & STB) so didn't know about the funding nexus. Every agency has its nuances as to how 40 CFR 1500 is interpreted and/or implemented. I completely agree with you that the NEPA process is solid, and if done objectively, the public participation can provide a better informed decision.
Thanks again for your insight.
Actually, it appears most external (and perhaps internal) research is excluded from NEPA because they assume there will be no escapes (I worked in ge organisms). But I wonder how analysis for Corps, BuRec, FERC etc. handles the possibility of accidents? Of course generally you are not licensing new dams.. or facilities.. or are they? I wonder how NRC NEPA handles it?
So how to apply this public interest oriented, rational approach to something like, say, climate policy, where the cost-benefit analysis has been ignored, if not outright inverted.
This goes far, far beyond just high risk bioengineering or bioweapons research. This is a case of overt and deliberate genocide, it was not accidental, it was obviously deliberate, well planned and imposed with a viciousness that only the worst of Psychopaths would direct. Many of the most knowledgeable, the best & brightest have declared that to be the truth.
The Davos Bankster gang are just lovin' their plandemic. They give $billions in gifts to any country that follows their nutball draconian covid lockdown policies, and the 4 countries that refused, 3 of their leaders were assassinated, and 1 was color revolutioned. They staged Event 201 wargame of a corona pandemic in Oct 2019, usual suspects Gates, Rockefeller & CIA. And Fauci stated in 2017 that Trump would have a pandemic in his term.
Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, Archbishop Carlo Vigano who has the connections to the powerful warned about what is happening:
"“I call upon rulers, political and religious leaders, intellectuals and all people of good will, inviting them to unite in an Alliance that launches an anti-globalist manifesto….”
"...For two years now we have been witnessing a global coup d’état, in which a financial and ideological elite has succeeded in seizing control of part of national governments, public and private institutions, the media, the judiciary, politicians and religious leaders.
All of these, without distinction, have become enslaved to these new masters who ensure power, money and social affirmation to their accomplices.
Fundamental rights, which up until yesterday were presented as inviolable, have been trampled underfoot in the name of an emergency: today a health emergency, tomorrow an ecological emergency and after that an internet emergency..."
https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-148-2021-thurs-nov-18-vigano-appeal/
Notice the Pentagon is already warning of a massive Cyberattack from supposedly China. We've already seen the Climate Change "Emergency" Alarmist hype.
Evo Morales: "...I continue having doubts about …corona virus. I read…a report from the IMF that said…it’s important to reduce unnecessary population, & who are they? The old, the disabled, poor people, the working class. It looks like, brothers & sisters, that this pandemic is part of a biological war. Let the poor die, the old die, the disabled die.. It looks like… this pandemic is part of a biological war…”
This is Evo Morales, the former President of Bolivia that the U.S helped coup out of his own country.
Another clue was the Iranian leadership who were badly affected by Covid right at the very beginning of the plandemic. Even before Italy. So how did Covid spread so early to the holy city of Qom in Iran which had negligible Chinese, unlike Italy which had Chinese garment workers? Ron Unz wrote a lot about it:
"...Most of these early cases had occurred exactly where one might expect, among the East Asian countries bordering China. But by late February Iran had become the second epicenter of the global outbreak. Even more surprisingly, its political elites had been especially hard-hit, with a full 10% of the entire Iranian parliament soon infected[35] and at least a dozen of its officials and politicians[36] dying of the disease, including some who were quite senior[37]. Indeed, Neocon activists on Twitter began gleefully noting.."
"... initial Iranian outbreak was also strangely centered on the Holy City of Qom, the home of that country’s elite political and religious leadership rather than in the far larger metropolis of Tehran....Wuhan is some 5,500 kilometers from Qom, so the latter city would hardly seem the most likely location for the next major appearance of the virus...By March additional major Covid outbreaks had also occurred in Northern Italy and soon afterwards Spain, but the circumstances were quite different. According to Wikipedia, some 300,000 Chinese[38] live and work in that Italian region while another 150,000 Chinese reside in Spain[39], ...By contrast, Iran’s total Chinese population is one of the smallest in the world, numbering just 5,000-9,000[40], and overwhelmingly concentrated in Tehran rather than Qom...."
So, yeah this was planned. It was much more than a Lab Leak. This was deliberate bio-warfare against the Earth's population. As bad a crime as it gets. No prosecutions or even criminal investigations for mass murder.
Yeah, but what was the worst case scenario cost and how many extra days of data was obtained?
Science is, at bottom, formalized curiosity: "run and find out" and many scientists, like Anderson, bristle at any restrictions on pursuing his curiosity.
Let's step back. What benefit is there to "gain of function" research? The work itself manipulates a pathogen to make it more virulent, more contagious. To what end? Nature itself rolls the genetic dice to come up with features that may be those things but the features born in the lab are bogglingly unlikely to be those features that Nature comes up with so, for instance, a vaccine based on a lab-invented germ can have only one use: as part of a bio-warfare program. The vaccine developed based on an invented germ is unlikely to have the features needed to identify and neutralize the natural germ. It -may- be insurance against a lab accident but that's it. It's most likely an adjunct to a covert bio-war program
re: "Of course, such characterizations are usually complicated by the fact that different stakeholders have preferences for how they’d like the decision to be made well before any such benefit-risk characterization." Preferences are not complications, at least not any more than quantifying the risks and the benefits. Preferences are an integral part of decision making. How would you evaluate the tradeoff(s) between the (quantified) risks and benefits without knowing the preferences? Impossible.
That said, thanks very much for THB, to which I am a happy subscriber. There is so much BS, arguments motivated by politics and ideology rather than science (and preferences). THB is a key source of information for me. Thanks Roger.
It's hard to fathom that an insurance company would issue a policy to a US Government agency funding clearly dangerous research that is subcontracted to a private US company that then subcontracts part of that research to a Chinese Government Lab that has been repeatedly cited for unsafe practices.
Yes, I’m trying to wrap my head around the underwriting on such a policy.
I wouldn’t want to be the guy whom financial projections were relied upon for insuring such risk.
I like the concept of "insurability", even if only as a thought experiment. However, this clearly would not have affected our recent Covid-19 FUBAR, as all involved strenuously denied involvement in GoF research even though there are lots of indications that not only was there GoF research going on, but it was funded by our own St. Fauci.
A better model for regulating such risky endeavors might be explicit personal responsibility (and by that I mean 'your honor, your fortune, and your life'), but until there is a public hanging, no amount of verbiage or pontification will make any difference
FUBAR for sure.
Public accountability for the recent screw up would be a good place to start.
"Benefit-risk estimates don’t make decisions for us, but then can make..." should be
"Benefit-risk estimates don’t make decisions for us, but they can make..."
👍🙏
I'm a firm believer that insurance premiums should be linked to risks.
Take the Colorado front range. Compared to 50 years ago, the quantity, quality and value of new homes in the mountains west of Boulder have increase significantly, and with that growth, the risk of devastating wildfires. Do the insurance premiums not only cover the dwellingd, if lost, but present a barrier to building entry that helps mitigate the exposure risk?
Just like budgeting for projects, growth can be stimulated by incentives or de-incentivized by taxes and regulation.
As in the cases you mention, a good understanding of the real potential risks helps set the decision making process.
While I agree completely with you in regards to weather/terrain issues like homes on the front range, homes in coastal areas prone to hurricanes, and homes in flood plains, I do NOT agree with you that this model can be applied to politicians and nation-states. Both entities are adept at avoiding/redirecting/obfuscating responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone mistakes like having a GoF virus escape from a poorly designed and supervised lab and causing a pandemic that killed millions. From the politician's POV the actual risks are very probably seen as minimal - the blame can always be shifted to somewhere/someone else, so why not? OTOH the rewards, in terms of power and money can be quite high, so again, why not? As I said before, until there are public hangings.....
"...politicians and nation-states. Both entities are adept at avoiding/redirecting/obfuscating responsibility for ANYTHING, let alone mistakes like having a GoF virus escape from a poorly designed and supervised lab and causing a pandemic that killed millions."
Boy howdy now there's and understatement if ever I saw one! Then there's:
"Consider that the economic impacts of Covid-19 have been estimated at $16 trillion, while capital in the reinsurance market (2022) was $638 billion. Any agreement to require liability insurance for risky research would thus also need to be accompanied by a agreed upon cap on that liability."
Seems unlikely that could ever be achieved what with global estimated total GDP for 2022 around US $95 trillion with the US contributing ~ 25% of that.
How many pandemics does it take to kill a civilization?