As the Trump administration reportedly considers halting so-called “gain of function” research that can make viruses more dangerous or contagious, scientists remain divided about the risk versus benefits of this type of experimentation.
Northeastern University experts say the debate about the use of “gain of function” goes back years — and several presidential administrations — but intelligence reports linking COVID-19 to a possible lab leak in China have brought it to public attention like never before.
Jared Auclair, a Northeastern expert in chemical biology, says proponents argue that the research allows scientists to get a jumpstart on pandemic preparedness, while opponents warn about the dangers of labs unleashing hyper-virulent diseases on an unsuspecting populace.
“The division is all based on risk,” Auclair says, including the possibility of “essentially creating a superbug that if you released it into the world could be catastrophic.”
“From my perspective, this is not a science question anymore. This is a policy question,” says Samuel Scarpino, an expert in pathogen surveillance and director of Northeastern’s AI + Life Sciences.
“We know that we have learned things from these experiments. We know that they are potentially risky,” he says. “The question is whether what we learn is valuable enough to offset the risks. That’s a question the policymakers we elect have to answer.”
