Jump to content

Talk:Gain-of-function research

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 07:03, 13 December 2022 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gain-of-function research/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

  1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
  2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
  3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
  4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
  5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
  6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
  7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
  8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
  9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Last updated (diff) on 15 March 2024 by Novem Linguae (t · c)

GOF in cancer research

This article violates WP:WEIGHT by dealing almost exclusively with "pathogens of pandemic potential" and ignoring the more common research that don't involve the pandemic potential issue at all. For example, here's an article in the NEJM about how GOF is used to reprogram exhausted T-cells to produce effector cyctokines against cancer again:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMcibr2203616
Turbocharging the T Cell to Fight Cancer
Andrea Schietinger
N Engl J Med
2022 Jun 16;386(24):2334-2336.
PMID: 35648702
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcibr2203616

Why doesn't this Wikipedia entry point out (as the Nature article did) that PPP are only a subset (maybe a small subset) of GOF research?

--Nbauman (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to edit it so that it does so. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired of getting into edit wars. --Nbauman (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoF alters "organism" or pathogen

In the lede, we describe gain of function as "research that genetically alters an organism". I would like to discuss changing the word "organism" to either "pathogen" or "infectious agent", as much gain of function research is done on viruses, which are not universally regarded as organisms. Poppa shark (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoF as a term does not only refer to pathogens. It also refers to experiments done on zebrafish, cancer cells, frogs, mice, etc. Just because that is the most popular public usage does not mean that is how we refer to it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects the scholarly sources on every subject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's a fair response. Do you have any ideas for the article to demonstrate that it can include research done on viruses, while also including non-infectious organisms? Poppa shark (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think it needs a large expansion on the non-pathogen parts of GoF describing what makes something GoF vs "GoF research of concern" AKA "GoFRoC" See the above section. If I had the time on my hands I would do it myself. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shibbolethink, please follow WP:BRD. You have made two reverts [3] [4] restoring your preferred use of the term "organism" despite most sources referring to "pathogens", including most of the sources already cited on this page, and the new source I added. The Huntington's disease study you added [5] is a WP:PRIMARY source, and is more relevant for Mutation#By_effect_on_function than this article, which is about pathogen research. Even the new NIH definition refers to it primarily as pathogen research. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ScrumptiousFood, you appear to have BRD backward, at least when it comes to "organism" vs. "pathogen". The former has been in the article for a long time, and your change to "pathogen" was the bold edit. Please self-revert during discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to "organism" vs. "pathogen", I agree with Poppa shark, as most of our sources refer to this in relation to experimentation on pathogens and microorganisms. If you have studies relating to GoF research with zebrafish, cancer cells, frogs, mice, I suggest you add those to another more relevant article. Adding the Huntington's disease study to expand the scope of this article was the bold move I was referring to. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right about "most of our sources", but you've certainly not made your case yet. In the meantime, you're definitely wrong about BRD, and your preferred version is only up due to your willingness to edit war. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My replacing of "organism" with "pathogen" was BOLD, but so was Shibbolethink's addition of a new source expanding the scope of this article. You may revert to organism, but I must note that while it may be longstanding, was not discussed when Shibbolethink first added it, without the required citations [6]. I am willing to discuss sources on this talk page but please refrain from casing aspirations about edit warring. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! I went back to the version before Shibbolethink's edits. I'd love to know from you how we can determine if most sources use the narrower definition of GoF. Shibbolethink, would you be amenable to re-including your content in other parts of the article? At a glance, the placement that early in the lead seemed undue. Are there secondary sources that give an overview of the kinds of research that are commonly described as GoF? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't confuse the issue of pathogens vs organisms, with the issue of GoF vs GoFRoC. While there is a consensus that not all GoF is GoFRoC, and that not all pathogens are ePPP, the general term for the research has now stuck, and is covered by reliable sources in relation to pathogen research only. Studies on Huntington's disease don't belong anywhere in this article, even if a gain-of-function was involved. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Studies on Huntington's disease don't belong anywhere in this article, even if a gain-of-function was involved Why do you get to decide that? These sources use the phrase "gain-of-function" as understood by scientists? — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not "expanding the scope of this article" as the current title includes this scope. That the current article does not reflect the scope is a problem several other users have pointed out correctly on this talk page in several different sections... — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ScrumptiousFood
this article about Huntington's is a REVIEW. which makes it a secondary source perfectly suited for inclusion on wikipedia. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree the topic of this article is primarily about pathogen research. There are other articles more relevant for the topic of experiments performed on zebrafish, cancer cells, frogs, mice, etc. GoF is the WP:COMMONNAME for this kind of pathogen research, and though GoFRoC and ePPP may be the more correct scientific terminology, scientists are divided on where the draw the line between them is drawn. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing PRIMARY source and adding NIH source - @ScrumptiousFood every source I added was an academic scholarly review, which are secondary sources and considered superior to news-based sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Shibbolethink's latest changes, and the scope of this article is broad gain of function research, not just GoFRoC. His changes are well-cited (two review articles, look on PubMed) and within the scope of this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the general term for the research has now stuck, and is covered by reliable sources in relation to pathogen research only." User:ScrumptiousFood, please provide WP:RS for this statement. I don't think it's "now stuck." When I searched PubMed for "gain of function", out of the most recent 100 hits, no more than 3 or 4 had anything to do with pathogen research. --Nbauman (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all Genetic Modification is Gain of Function

The term "Gain of Function" (GoF) is a misnomer; any genetic alteration of an organism, including the modification of a micro-organism is GoF. What Fauci, Daszak, Lane,. and others commit is better described as (evil) augmentation, apparently for profit, population control - and infamy. But there is more than that to there workings. Sadly, pos writing rubbish on wiki enable criminals like those mentioned above to flourish at the expense of innocent peoples lives, health and livelihoods. 90.192.92.92 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

any genetic alteration. So loss of function would be gain of function research? Dunno about that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Six of the six mice..."

Surely "All of the six mice" 2601:CF:300:4B70:F9:2F77:5234:5134 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sure! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gain-of-function_research&oldid=1127165073"