Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,308
- 99,396
- 3,645
Yes, because of the difference (important to a government official) between a legal version of gain of function to comply with a "treaty" of sorts (which guides our scientists and government) and a more colloquial version. That's one of the things the article informs us on. If Rand has a problem with the current state of ethics of viral research, then he should say so and say why. His argument (not that the buffoon Rand knows it) really boils down to violating the spirit of the ethics agreement, vs. what can be performed and funded. (and of trying to blame political enemies for an accident in China, his only real reason to be there, in that silly head of his).Funny, the WaPo article concludes,
"the NIH connection to possible gain-of-function research appears so far to be elusive."
The paper Paul referenced includes:
"This work was jointly funded by...the National Institutes of Health (NIAID R01AI110964)"
There are good points in the things Rand brings to our attention. Quite by accident and expedience, no doubt. But it is an important discussion that we need to have. Just as important is how we treat our frontiers between humans and wildlife, and for the same reasons.