More ASM propaganda
"On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology.
Since January 2024, Dr. Wain-Hobson has written weekly essays for Biosafety Now discussing risky research in virology. You can read his entire series here.
On Reading two documents on Gain of Function Research posted on the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) website. A 2025 fact sheet and Expert Roundtable: Gain of Function Research With Infectious Agents September 13, 2023
Readers will know that the ASM has been a staunch supporter of dangerous GOF (DGOF) research, notably the morphing of novel human influenza viruses out of those from birds. This work is indistinguishable from the genesis of biological weapons of mass destruction and therefore immoral, at least according to the Catholic Church (Biosomething). And while an atheist, On reading couldn’t agree more.
The landmark work that started the DGOF controversy on the bird flu H5N1 virus eclipsed a catastrophic study by another group from the University of Maryland, which makes the work of Drs. Fouchier and Kawaoka look like child’s play. Catastrophic? Surely an exaggeration? Nope, a novel transmissible human flu virus spread by the respiratory route that killed 60% of infected animals. Just that.
For a second try to imagine the state of the world after a flu pandemic that was 30 times more lethal than Spanish flu, or 20 times the initial strain of the COVID-19 pandemic. The numbers of dead would be close to half a billion in the initial wave. Despite this, the ASM pushed back hard on any criticism, while the NIH was as quiet as a hibernating squirrel. For the record, the only person to holler at the time was On reading. We’ll address this in an upcoming essay.
As the May 5, 2025 Presidential Executive Order on DGOF has put a stop to such madness, you might have thought that the ASM would be a little more circumspect in what they write. Although the fact sheet is undated, a url at the bottom of the first page makes reference to the Executive Order so we can take it is current ASM orthodoxy.
In answering the first question What is Gain of Function Research? we learn that GOF occurs naturally as viruses and other microbes evolve and may also be accomplished in the lab by adding to or changing the organism’s genetic sequence, and this type of research has had a positive impact on basic and applied life science research. Indeed, it allows an organism to do more than it used to do. They go one better and use the e word - gain of function is a naturally occurring evolutionary process and cap it off with listing a few examples of natural DGOF such as the emergence of antibiotic resistance and the unending seasonal flu variants. 1) While nature is bristling with nasty experiments, it does not undertake them deliberately, what we’d call research, so it’s a sloppy analogy. 2) It’s a variant of the much overused ‘Mother Nature is the world’s worst bioterrorist.’ 3) At least we have their admission of positive and negative sides to natural GOF experiments. Hence, something similar should pertain lab GOF experiments. But really, this isn’t even first year biology.
Under Why do scientists use gain of function techniques in research? the logic seems to be that as GOF is part and parcel of an evolutionary process, scientists had better use it to better understand microbes. Been there, done that (Observer bias, Limits to lab simulated virus evolution).
They go on; But the natural process of gain of function occurs too slowly for scientists to study, so the gain of function technique is employed to develop better experimental tools to advance scientific discovery, understand the natural processes that are occurring, and develop solutions to medical conditions or other problems in the living world around us. Nonsense. The natural process of evolution allowed Dr. Fouchier to do his DGOF experiment on the H5N1 bird flu virus.
Second, GOF research is used to understand the natural processes. We know that the Fouchier and Kawaoka of 2012 experiments didn’t predict the next pandemic which was the promise. That’s a fact. The next pandemic was COVID-19… Neither scientist now believes in those naïve claims of 2010, claims that flew in the face of a little elementary evolutionary virology. The third part of the sentence is merely hitched on to rest to provide positive traction.
We learn that Certain types of gain of function research — for example, Gain of Function Research of Concern, Dual Use Research of Concern… raise important biosafety and/or biosecurity concerns. While these are an extremely small subset of gain of function experiments, they require a higher level of review and are subject to strict protocols.
This is what the controversy was all about. GOF research on microbes resulting in the enhancement of traits like virulence and transmission is DGOF. There was never any beef with GOF research.
And yes, they represent a tiny fraction of experiments. That was always the case. But at least the ASM has admitted this and so the Executive Order isn’t going to discombobulate US research on viruses and bacteria. However, they fail to admit three other facts. DGOF research…
• Can’t deliver on the promise to understand the natural processes that are occurring for microbes,
• Is indistinguishable from the development of biological weapons,
• It is immoral (Biosomething).
Such experiments require a higher level of review and are subject to strict protocols. Once again, they totally duck the issue of risk and benefit and whether these experiments should even be done. The belief is they can handle it, until they can’t, by which time it will be well out of Pandora’s microbial box. Indeed, we may be in the beginning of a pandemic.
Like everybody, they duck the publication issue, informing rogue states how to make dangerous bioweapons courtesy of the US taxpayer. Do remember, the ASM is not just a learned society. It is also a publishing house of great reach among infectious disease scientists.
The piece continues with an intellectual lapsus: How have we used gain of function in life science research? No, that was never the question. The controversy was about DGOF, not GOF. They’ve slipped back to ambiguity. Deliberately. Accordingly, everything in this section is irrelevant.
They wrap up the piece with some policy recommendations, the first of which is Clearly define terms like “gain of function” to ensure a common understanding of which categories of gain of function research require enhanced scrutiny. The effrontery!
At this point On reading gave up especially as the next title was Increase transparency and public engagement. Once again, the ASM appears incapable of any data driven, logical and coherent contributions to the topic.
No organization or learned society has played on the GOF/DGOF semantics more than the ASM. The list of essays highlighting this is rather long unfortunately… (Deconstructing the portrait, Going places, Flights from reason, Perilous posturing, Crossing the line, Electroplated nickel silver, An evolutionary void, Gobbledygook).
An earlier 2023 piece from the ASM was passed over - there were more pressing publications to correct - which is a pity for it contains a gem. The term gain of function can have different meanings based on the context or the audience.
If the language used is clear, then the meaning wouldn’t depend on the context or the audience. If scientists cannot express themselves clearly than how can they work productively? They must be going round in circles most of the time. This leads to the obvious corollary, why should they be funded?
The meaning of the word context by bureaucrats and those of influence has been addressed in an earlier essay (Red lines, Godot and Context). It is a euphemism for ‘let us decide’.
The fact is that the ASM doesn’t want any restrictions on what can and can’t be done. They consider biosafety constraints more than enough to handle DGOF research. They know they cannot make risk benefit analyses as the claims of Drs. Fouchier and Kawaoka circa 2012 were bogus.
As they can’t admit publicly that they endorse the genesis of bacteria and viruses that are akin to biological weapons and therefore immoral (Biosomething), their strategy is to constantly mix up DGOF with GOF research, talk up the positive side of GOF research such that the outcome depends on the context. And by wordsmithing and using technical jargon that the public or politician understandably may have difficulty understanding, they hope to quietly undertake DGOF on viruses and bacteria.
They consider themselves the guardians of what research can be done on microbes. They feel no need for oversight even though most infectious disease research in the US is funded by the NIH, aka the taxpayer.
The ASM is not alone. Dr Racaniello and his team do it all the time in their TWiV podcasts dealing with DGOF research on viruses.
Their problem is the world has changed.
Everything suggests the ASM deep down doesn’t accept the Presidential Executive Order. This is troubling for it puts them at odds with the NIH Director and that of the NIAID who both support it.
Conclusion
Using clear and unequivocal language will the ASM state that it accepts the Executive Order on dangerous GOF? If not, explain why. Whatever do be clear.
