ReviewFrontiers in public health2014
The Irrationality of GOF Avian Influenza Virus Research.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Grand challenge in biosafety and biosecurity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Reconsidering the need for gain-of-function research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens in the post-COVID-19 era.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Article
- A New Approach to Evaluating the Risk-Benefit Equation for Dual-Use and Gain-of-Function Research of Concern.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2018Article
- Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Infectious Diseases Society of America and Gain-of-Function Experiments With Pathogens Having Pandemic Potential.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Article
- European Academies Advise on Gain-of-Function Studies in Influenza Virus Research.Journal of virology · 2015Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The last two and a half years have witnessed a curious debate in virology characterized by a remarkable lack of discussion. It goes by the misleading epithet "gain of function" (GOF) influenza virus research, or simply GOF. As will be seen, there is nothing good to be gained. The controversial experiments confer aerosol transmission on avian influenza virus strains that can infect humans, but which are not naturally transmitted between humans. Some of the newer strains are clearly highly pathogenic for man. It will be shown here that the benefits of the work are erroneous and overstated while the risk of an accident is finite, if small. The consequence of any accident would be anywhere from a handful of infections to a catastrophic pandemic. There has been a single open international meeting in this period, which is surprising given that openness and discussion are essential to good science. Despite US and EU government funding, no risk-benefit analysis has been published, which again is surprising. This research can be duplicated readily in many labs and requires little high tech. It falls under the definition of DURC without the slightest shadow of a doubt and constitutes the most important challenge facing contemporary biology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.