Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.614 [SLACK_000828] · slack_pm:msg:06419

Date: 2021-03-22 07:57
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes
speaker: Andrew Rambaut
Topics: Gain-of-function research

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

So annoying it has been taken up by the GOF debate (which I have some sympathy with) - no one (except the real crazies) are suggesting this is GOF research surely?

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
So annoying it has been taken up by the GOF debate (which I have some sympathy with) - no one (except the real crazies) are suggesting this is GOF research surely?	needs context	speaker_own	questions

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

So annoying it has been taken up by the GOF debate (which I have some sympathy with) - no one (except the real crazies) are suggesting this is GOF research surely?

needs context

speaker_own

questions

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2021-03-22 07:52 Kristian G. Andersen open

Lipsitch just tweeted it (and Tami...) - I'm surprised it took Marc so long to post one of these articles... (I pinged him way back in February of last year to see if he had heard anything - he hadn't, but they had had a lot of conversations about "dangerous pseudotyped viruses" (it was clear he didn't know the difference - which is a little surprising tome))
2021-03-22 07:53 Kristian G. Andersen open

shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-03-22 at 7.50.54 AM.png
2021-03-22 07:57 Andrew Rambaut

So annoying it has been taken up by the GOF debate (which I have some sympathy with) - no one (except the real crazies) are suggesting this is GOF research surely?
2021-03-22 08:01 Kristian G. Andersen open

Mixing up the two is deeply problematic - the NIH was asking me about this too a year ago and I made it clear that now wasn't the time to reignite the GOF debate since people get confused. I'm not sure even Marc understands the difference between GOF and basic research, but I'm sure he considers everything that went on at the WIV to beGOF (it's not - most GOF has been done in Baric's lab).
2021-03-22 08:01 Kristian G. Andersen open

"most, if not all"
2021-03-22 08:48 Robert F. Garry open

Actually it *IS* about conspiracy theories and China-bashing. The China-bashing is literally getting Asian-American'skilled. For the antiGoF [yes it should be vetted and monitored, which it is] and antiBSL-3/4 [you bet they areregulated] crowd this is all about stirring up the pot again and reviving arguments that they lost. [shared file(s): image.png]
2021-03-22 08:55 Robert F. Garry open

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n742.full

Full conversation →