👋 I am disabling input while I build a new version that does not rely on Twitter's $100 / mo API.

“Gain-of-Function” Research Rebranded as “Bioweapon” Research

In response to recent incidents involving gain-of-function research, tech investor @pmarca has suggested renaming this type of experiment "bioweapon" research due to its potential deadly consequences. It remains unclear what name change will be implemented but stricter regulations are expected in order to prevent future accidents from occurring.

A laboratory scientist wearing protective gear while working with test tubes containing a virus sample

A laboratory scientist wearing protective gear while working with test tubes containing a virus sample

In a tweet posted by @Z3RO_Y34R and retweeted by tech investor @pmarca, it was suggested that the term “gain-of-function” research should be rebranded as “bioweapon” research. The reason for this suggestion is that the function referred to in gain-of-function research is death. The idea of gain-of-function research has been around since the 1970s and refers to experiments designed to give pathogens new abilities or increase their virulence. This type of research has been controversial due to the potential for misuse and accidental release of dangerous pathogens into the environment. It has also been criticized for its ethical implications, as some argue that it is unethical to deliberately create more dangerous versions of existing viruses. In recent years, there have been several incidents involving gain-of-function research which have caused further concern about its safety and ethics. In 2019, a laboratory in Wuhan, China was accused of conducting gain-of-function experiments on coronaviruses, leading many to speculate that this may have contributed to the emergence of COVID 19. This incident sparked an international debate about whether such experiments should be allowed at all. Now, with @Z3RO_Y34R and @pmarca's suggestion that gain-of-function research should be rebranded as bioweapon research, it appears that there is growing support for stricter regulations on such experiments. The exact name change proposed by these two individuals remains unclear; however, it seems likely that any new regulations would include greater oversight and stricter safety protocols when conducting such experiments in order to prevent future incidents from occurring.