A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
That part would be done by me.
-
Okay. DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com
-
Well, at least that's the way the grant was written initially. Whether that would have functionally happened is a fair question, because if the Chinese discovered the virus, the question always exists whether they would share it with me to do that work or not.
-
If you were on the proposal, you would have expected that they would?
-
2026-04-10 09:00
Ralph S. Baric
I would have, but I would also be uncertain that they would do that.
-
And so you said that it would be -- this was gain-of-function. This proposal -- because this is the first time I'm hearing that -- because, I mean, PREEMPT, there were grants that were funded. So DEFUSE wasn't. But this is the first time I'm hearing that the actual call, the BAA was asking for --
-
It was asking to understand cross-species movement of viruses down to the nucleotide level. And my interpretation of that was gain-of-function, and they discuss gain-of-function. Now, I found it very interesting that the letter that they provided shortly thereafter said that the experiments were DURC. DURC is Dual-Use Research of Concern. involving 15 pathogens, none of which is a coronavirus. So I never saw that letter in the review. Now, Peter Daszak may have gotten that letter, but we were told the main reason the grant was rejected was that we DC.Scheduling@LexitasLegal.com proposed to do intervention studies in the bat caves, and they had said they wanted to do this in a more controlled setting.
-
In the laboratory?
-
In a laboratory setting.