The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Life Sciences
  3. Physiology & Medicine
  4. COVID-19
  5. Is it time to ban "Gain of Function" testing?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Is it time to ban "Gain of Function" testing?

  • 1 Replies
  • 508 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline evan_au (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 9190
  • Activity:
    73.5%
  • Thanked: 917 times
    • View Profile
Is it time to ban "Gain of Function" testing?
« on: 25/04/2020 22:39:44 »
Allegations/rumors have surfaced about scientists doing "gain of function" testing on bat viruses in Wuhan.
- Some of the results from Chinese & US scientists have appeared in peer-reviewed journals (so it is claimed)

Are we in a serious-enough situation that there is a general international willingness to ban "gain of function" testing?
- Or is this something which is too hard to verify?
- Or will the process of defining what is banned be used by the crazies as a recipe to do precisely what is banned?
        - And just create more plagues that spread around the globe?
- Or is this something which we really need to keep doing, to protect ourselves from new viruses?

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

Logged
 



Offline evan_au (OP)

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • ********
  • 9190
  • Activity:
    73.5%
  • Thanked: 917 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it time to ban "Gain of Function" testing?
« Reply #1 on: 26/04/2020 10:27:31 »
A quick search in Google Scholar turned up this paper, with authors from Wuhan and North Carolina...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Must ∞ monkeys on ∞ typewriters really write everything given ∞ time?

Started by chiralSPOBoard General Science

Replies: 28
Views: 24742
Last post 28/03/2020 11:42:26
by yor_on
We Know The Extent Of The Sun, What Is The Extent Of Space Time?

Started by TitanscapeBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 2
Views: 11149
Last post 27/04/2008 23:10:10
by turnipsock
If you could travel faster than light, could you travel in time?

Started by DmaierBoard Technology

Replies: 13
Views: 14310
Last post 19/03/2020 14:56:52
by Paul25
If the speed of light is constant, time must be constant too?

Started by Chuck FBoard General Science

Replies: 4
Views: 11903
Last post 19/03/2020 14:51:12
by Paul25
If gravity is a warping of time, why are we trying to detect gravity?

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 10
Views: 5073
Last post 19/03/2020 14:48:11
by Paul25
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.185 seconds with 36 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.