Vagueness and costs of the pause on gain-of-function (GOF) experiments on pathogens with pandemic potential, including influenza virus

Reconsidering the need for gain-of-function research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens in the post-COVID-19 era

The dual-use risk of infectious disease research using enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP), particularly gain-of-function (GOF) research, has been debated since 2011. As of now, research is supported on the condition that the research plan is reviewed and the actual experiment is supervised. However, the kinds of research conducted and what benefits they have brought to our society have not been adequately verified. Nevertheless, due to the COVID-19 pandemic that began at the end of 2019 and caused numerous deaths and wide economic disruption, the importance of infectious disease control from an international perspective has been recognized. Although complete control of the pandemic is still far off, positive signs include generating epidemiological trends based on genome analysis, therapeutic drug and vaccine development, clinical patient management, and public health policy interventions. In this context, the time has come to reconsider the true significance of GOF research on ePPP and the state of research governance in the post-COVID-19 era. In particular, the risks of such research are clearer than before, whereas its benefits seem less apparent. In this paper, we summarize the history of discussions on such GOF research, its significance in the light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, and the direction we shall take in the future.

Microbial genomics amidst the Arctic crisis

The Arctic is warming - fast. Microbes in the Arctic play pivotal roles in feedbacks that magnify the impacts of Arctic change. Understanding the genome evolution, diversity and dynamics of Arctic microbes can provide insights relevant for both fundamental microbiology and interdisciplinary Arctic science. Within this synthesis, we highlight four key areas where genomic insights to the microbial dimensions of Arctic change are urgently required: the changing Arctic Ocean, greenhouse gas release from the thawing permafrost, 'biological darkening' of glacial surfaces, and human activities within the Arctic. Furthermore, we identify four principal challenges that provide opportunities for timely innovation in Arctic microbial genomics. These range from insufficient genomic data to develop unifying concepts or model organisms for Arctic microbiology to challenges in gaining authentic insights to the structure and function of low-biomass microbiota and integration of data on the causes and consequences of microbial feedbacks across scales. We contend that our insights to date on the genomics of Arctic microbes are limited in these key areas, and we identify priorities and new ways of working to help ensure microbial genomics is in the vanguard of the scientific response to the Arctic crisis.

Public engagement and the governance of gain-of-function research

The White House recently called for a "robust and broad deliberative process" to assess the risks and benefits of select gain-of-function studies, pausing current experiments and further grants until new federal policy on research funding and oversight is developed. At issue is whether and under what conditions laboratory studies that enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of potential pandemic pathogens such as the H5N1 avian influenza virus should go forward. To date, professionals from medicine, public health, and the life sciences have dominated the debate, and each side of the controversy has cited the public's well-being as the principal motivator for their position. A major stakeholder, the general public, has not yet actively and systematically weighed in on the matter. This commentary considers in what form and with what benefit public participation may materialize in the current debate regarding the governance of gain-of-function research.