Talk:Gain-of-function research

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The Cambridge Working Group was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 May 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gain-of-function research. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was a past Medicine Collaboration of the Week.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Molecular Biology: MCB Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

COVID-19 Start‑class Mid‑importance

	COVID-19 portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Viruses Start‑class High‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gain-of-function research article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 21 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
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)
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, ...)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Which pages use this template?

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

Nature 2021 article

I think this WP entry does not clearly distinguish between "gain of function" and "pathogens of pandemic potential". Correct me if I'm wrong, but the entry has no mention of gain of function that does not involve pathogens or risk of harm. When I did a PubMed search for "gain of function", I got a lot of innocuous research, like gain of function in gene variants on the thrombolytic cascade.

Here's a good recent article from Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02903-x

The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research

The mystery of COVID’s origins has reignited a contentious debate about potentially risky studies and the fuzzy terminology that describes them.

Amber Dance

Nature

27 October 2021

It’s no surprise that politicians and scientists would disagree on GOF’s meaning, because it can mean different things in different contexts. At its most innocuous, GOF is a classic genetics term to describe mutations that give a gene, RNA or protein new abilities or expression patterns. Gain of function might result in bacteria that are extra sensitive to potassium ions5, for example, or an Arabidopsis plant with short stems and curly leaves6. A complementary approach — loss-of-function — involves disabling a gene to see what happens to organisms that lack it.

The term GOF didn’t have much to do with virology until the past decade. Then, the ferret influenza studies came along. In trying to advise the federal government on the nature of such research, the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) borrowed the term — and it stuck, says Gigi Gronvall, a biosecurity specialist at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. From that usage, it came to mean any research that improves a pathogen’s abilities to cause disease or spread from host to host.

--Nbauman (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Wall Street Journal video which also makes the point that gain of function research is "the workhorse of modern biology" and is used for research that has nothing to do with infectious disease and doesn't have the same theoretical risks. While this is a YouTube video, it meets WP:RS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PzJJQa4fQQ

Supercharging Viruses? Gain of Function Research and the Hunt for Covid’s Origins

Sep 15, 2021

Daniella Hernandez

"Gain of function extends beyond infectious diseases to other fields. There it's not as controversial, because it doesn't carry the same public health risks. Gain of function research is the workhorse of modern biology, so it's unlikely that it will go away altogether."

--Nbauman (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

First Congressional Hearing

"Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., chaired a subcommittee hearing Wednesday on gain-of-function research that may be linked to the COVID-19 pandemic. Pictured: Paul questions Dr. Anthony Fauci during a Nov. 4 committee hearing about the ongoing response to the pandemic." - The Daily Signal, Aug 4, 2022 Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Signal is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. [3] [4] — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) are leading the first congressional hearing on gain-of-function research as part of his ongoing efforts to investigate the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hearing comes amid intensifying Republican scrutiny on whether a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) caused the pandemic, as well as possible U.S. funding ties to the gain-of-function research at the facility. Gain-of-function involves enhancing a virus to make it more potent or transmissible." - NTD Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 16:18, 9 August 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]