BiothreatsGain-of-function (GoF) research set to resume, and unease grows
Gain-of-function (GoF) research involving H5N1 is set to resume – but without review comments, as the review panel has kept mum. Many scientists are worried, arguing that certain studies that aim to make pathogens more potent or more likely to spread in mammals are so risky they should be limited or even banned.
The ease of transfer of the H5N1 virus from avian to humans raises concern for the danger of spreading the virus // Source: life.nthu.edu.tw
Gain-of-function (GoF) research involving H5N1 is set to resume – but without review comments, as the review panel has kept mum.
Science reports that “HHS cannot make the panel’s reviews public because they contain proprietary and grant competition information” – regarding the two labs approved to run such experiments.
The outcome may not satisfy scientists who believe certain studies that aim to make pathogens more potent or more likely to spread in mammals are so risky they should be limited or even banned. Some are upset because the government’s review will not be made public. ‘After a deliberative process that cost $1 million for [a consultant’s] external study and consumed countless weeks and months of time for many scientists, we are now being asked to trust a completely opaque process where the outcome is to permit the continuation of dangerous experiments,’ says Harvard University epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch.
….
[One of the experiments] — Kawaoka’s grant is the same one on H5N1 that was paused in 2014. It includes identifying mutations in H5N1 that allow it to be transmitted by respiratory droplets in ferrets. He shared a list of reporting requirements that appear to reflect the new HHS review criteria. For example, he must immediately notify NIAID if he identifies an H5N1 strain that is both able to spread via respiratory droplets in ferrets and is highly pathogenic, or if he develops an EPPP that is resistant to antiviral drugs. Under the HHS framework, his grant now specifies reporting timelines and who he must notify at the NIAID and his university.
Pandora Report notes that, overall, many are concerned regarding the lack of transparency surrounding the decision to approve such research, especially with the amount of work that has gone into collaborative and informative discussions to help guide policy.
— Read more in Jocelyn Kaiser, “Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky poised to resume,” Science (8 February 2019)
