1) Boston University researches have made a SARS-CoV-2 virus that has the spike of Omicron BA.1 and the remaining genome of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Now they got in trouble because this research was funded by the US government (NIH) but they did not ask the NIH...
2)....if they were allowed to do so. Here is an excellent overview article about the case: statnews.com
3) And here is the study itself. biorxiv.org It is robust research. We know Omicron variants are less pathogenic in the mouse model. The group helped to establish that - in mice - the spike itself is not responsible for this attenuation.
4) It seems that the attenuation has more to do with the rest of the genome. Now, to be very clear, the ancestral version of the virus (unmodified) was more deadly than the 'chimeric' version with the Omicron spike.
5) Now, the outcome of the experiment was not clear. You could have assumed that the virus, compared to the ancestral virus is less pathogenic (which was the case). But it could also have been more pathogenic. Therefore, these experiments need to be done in appropriate....
6)....biosafety laboratories. And, if the virus can become more pathogenic and falls into certain categories, you also need permission from the US government to perform the experiment - especially if they fund your research. And that is what was not done here. That's why the....
7)...the group got in trouble. Not because of the experiment itself, no, because they did not ask for permission. To be very clear, nature did basically the exact same experiment before. It was called XD. XD was a recombinant virus in the human population that....
8)....combined the spike of Omicron with the remaining genome from Delta via recombination. As a reminder, Delta seemed to be more deadly in humans than the ancestral virus or Omicron. Here is an excellent thread from @PeacockFlu about it:
9) Now, XD, when put in mice did the same. Delta killed the mice, XD killed the mice, Omicron did not. Here is the paper: researchsquare.com
10) What is the point here? The point is, somebody did this experiment in controlled conditions and got in trouble for it. But Mother Nature did it already a while ago IN HUMANS and nobody cared. And again, the problem is not, that the experiment was done, the problem was....
11) ...that it seems the researchers did not ask for permission. Of note, other labs have legally made such viruses and used them for serology assays without any problems (e.g. here: nature.com).
12) My take on this is the same as @angie_rasmussen's in the STAT article. Regulations are not easily accessible even for experts in the field. This is not in the media because its dangerous research, this is in the media because somebody did not ask for permission....
13)....likely because they thought there is no need for it. Which brings us back to overly complicated regulations. Having said all that, I absolutely think GOF research should be tightly regulated and controlled.
Loading suggestions...