|

What is “Gain of Function’ research?

Share this article

‘Gain of Function’ (GOF) research uses benign-sounding terminology to confuse people who are unfamiliar with the subject.  It used to be called ‘biodefense,’ ‘biological warfare’ and ‘germ warfare’ research in past decades.

The term refers to making existing microorganisms (viruses, fungi and bacteria) more dangerous, by giving them one or more new functions.

Those added functions might be:

  1. the ability to spread more efficiently from person to person (increased infectivity or contagiousness)
  2. The ability to spread by aerosol transmission when the microorganism was unable to spread that way previously
  3. the ability to be more virulent or deadly

Some people think this type of research was banned by an international treaty (The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972) but as long as the research is said to be done for defensive purposes, and the quantities of microorganisms produced are small, it is not banned.

In 2014 over 200 scientists called for a halt to gain of function research.[1]ย  The federal government did halt gain of function research, but only for avian influenza and SARS-like viruses, and it left loopholes.ย  The ban only applied to federally funded research.ย  It did not apply to other families of viruses.ย  Waivers could be issued by NIH.ย 

In 2017 the ban was removed, but GOF research was supposed to be vetted by an NIH “Potential Pandemic Pathogens” committee.ย  However, the committee was never asked to review SARS-like research, which simply continued.ย  In 2022, scientists again called for better guidance on gain of function research [2] and restrictions may be coming [3] in the future.

The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal wrote, “Statistics on the number of breaches in the 1500 or so high containment laboratories in the USA are hard to come by.”ย [4] However, the CDC and USDA issue yearly reports [5] on the accidents in labs that do research on potential pandemic pathogens.ย  There are about 200 such accidents yearly in the United States that get reported to the program.

The CDC and USDA jointly manage the “Federal Select Agent Program” (FSAP) that keeps track of research on microorganisms that might cause pandemics in humans, livestock or food crops.  In 2021, the FSAP program reported 22 matters to the FBI for investigation involving loss of material, loss of a mouse and the presence of ‘select agents’ outside their registered location.  In 2021, the select agent program received 185 reports of losses or releases.[6]


[1] https://www.cambridgeworkinggroup.org/

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01209-w

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00257-0

[4] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2818%2930006-9/fulltext

[5] https://www.selectagents.gov/resources/publications/docs/FSAP_Annual_Report_2021_508.pdf

[6] https://www.selectagents.gov/resources/publications/docs/FSAP_Annual_Report_2021_508.pdf

Similar Posts

  • WHO Official Admits the Truth About Passports

    Share this article

    The World Health Organizationโ€™s Dr. Hanna Nohynek testified in court that she advised her government that vaccine passports were not needed but was ignored, despite explaining that the Covid vaccines did not stop virus transmission and the passports gave a false sense of security.

  • What is “nullification”?

    Share this article

    Share this article A win for states’ rights: how do state sovereignty laws apply to the WHO and…

  • SUPPORT:ย ย Interstate Milk Freedom Act – HR 8374ย 

    Share this article

    Notwithstanding the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), and any regulations or other guidance thereunder, a Federal department, agency, or court may not take any action (including any administrative, civil, criminal or other action) that would prohibit, interfere with, regulate, or otherwise restrict the interstate traffic of milk, or a milk product, that is unpasteurized and packaged for direct human consumption, ifโ€”ย 

  • The โ€œOne Healthโ€ Agenda

    Share this article

    In todayโ€™s installment, we will examine the One Health agenda and how it threatens to destroy both food freedom and medical freedom.ย 
    The term โ€œOne Healthโ€ was coined after the first SARS outbreak in the early 2000s to reflect the danger of new diseases emerging from human-animal contact. It refers to the idea of public health being not just about your health but also about animal and โ€œplanetaryโ€ health. It is framed in language designed to sound appealing and holistic.