### The Hot Potato of Gain of Function Research: A Conservative Perspective
In a world where science can sometimes feel like the villain in a poorly scripted horror movie, the debate over gain of function research is heating up—and not necessarily in a good way. Gain of function research involves manipulating viruses to understand their potential effects on humans, but many experts agree it’s a slippery slope. Recently, conversations surrounding a potential ban on this controversial practice have resurfaced, especially with former President Donald Trump entering the fray. While it may seem like a mildly spicy take to suggest banning gain of function research altogether, this issue deserves serious attention.
Proponents of gain of function research often argue it could offer insights into preventing future pandemics. After all, if scientists understand how to make a virus more virulent, they might also devise strategies to counter these threats. However, the average Joe on the street is left wondering: should we be playing god with nature? As is often pointed out, this “if it works well” scenario requires a hefty dose of optimism about the competence of governments and researchers, a quality we can agree has been less than stellar in recent years. Politicians may want to paint a rosy picture, but let’s face it—the realities of mishaps and misunderstandings suggest a more cautious approach might be wise.
The issue of transparency also looms large over the discussion. China, specifically the Wuhan lab implicated in the origin of COVID-19, is a focal point for skepticism. While some believe mistakes are simply part of progress, others argue that the can of worms opened by gain of function research could unleash unforeseeable consequences. The suggestion that China doesn’t have to heed the bans set by U.S. leaders raises a valid question: If we pull funding but they continue their research without oversight, are we just sticking our heads in the sand?
And here comes the big humdinger: the research isn’t confined to just one nation. Other countries, including Russia and Iran, are also in on the game, complicating the global landscape as conversations about regulations swirl. The stakes are enormous, as each nation vies to develop superior bioweapons under guises of public health research. With these nations seemingly competing in an arms race fueled by such unpredictable biological agents, shouldn’t the global community take a pause and evaluate healthy boundaries?
The conversation gets even more tangled when considering the handling of past pandemics. Many are understandably skittish about the return of public health directives reminiscent of COVID-19. After being deprived of school and subjected to strict lockdowns, it’s no surprise that approximately 75% of the population would be wary of future guidelines, regardless of their scientific rationale. While it would be easy to dismiss this fear as plain ol’ conspiracy thinking, the public’s skepticism undoubtedly comes from a place of learned caution.
As we trot along this bumpy road, it’s essential to acknowledge that mishaps can happen when big science and big politics collide. The idea that we could accidentally unleash new pathogens is scary enough, but what about the accountability for these scientific sins? In the heat of the moment, potential benefits can blind us to risks that could swirl catastrophically, like a tornado made of viruses—chaotic, unpredictable, and incredibly disruptive.
In conclusion, the conversation surrounding gain of function research is complex, nuanced, and potentially high-stakes. Conservatives believe that this is an area where caution should prevail. Banning gain of function research—or, at the very least, drawing clearer lines around its practice—might be a wise choice heading into an uncertain future. While some may still see a flicker of science’s potential, the threats that loom large in the shadows are not to be ignored. In a world where the stakes couldn’t be higher, perhaps it’s best to keep the hot potatoes—gain of function research included—off the table altogether.
