Is the debate and "pause" on experiments that alter pathogens with pandemic potential influencing future plans of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows?

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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence.Journal of virology · 2024
   Article
2. A New Approach to Evaluating the Risk-Benefit Equation for Dual-Use and Gain-of-Function Research of Concern.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2018
   Article
3. Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.Science and engineering ethics · 2016
   Article
4. Infectious Diseases Society of America and Gain-of-Function Experiments With Pathogens Having Pandemic Potential.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2016
   Article
5. The importance of virology at a time of great need and great jeopardy.mBio · 2015
   Article
6. Zika Virus Focuses the Gain-of-Function Debate.mSphere
   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

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as