GAINING DEPTH ON GAIN OF FUNCTION: JOSH ROGIN’S VIEW | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

GAINING DEPTH ON GAIN OF FUNCTION: JOSH ROGIN’S VIEW

I cited the judgment of Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin in “Fallacious Fauci strikes again.” In my post I relied on Rogin’s brief tweets. Today Rogin expands on his judgment in the column “What the fight between Anthony Fauci and Rand Paul is really about.” Here is the heart of his analysis of the issue between Fauci and Paul:

Both men were playing to the cameras, but many scientists think Paul actually does know what he’s talking about. One of them is Rutgers University microbiologist and biosafety expert Richard Ebright, whom Paul quoted as saying this research “matches, indeed epitomizes the definition of gain of function research.”

Other scientists, even those who believe the lab leak theory likely, argue that Fauci is technically correct, although they note that the official definition is so narrow it enables anyone to avoid the review process Fauci himself helped to establish. In other words, if the oversight system for reviewing risky research is almost never used, what good is it?

But it doesn’t matter which “gain of function” definition you prefer. What everyone can now see clearly is that NIH was collaborating on risky research with a Chinese lab that has zero transparency and zero accountability during a crisis — and no one in a position of power addressed that risk. Fauci is arguing the system worked. It didn’t. Even if the lab leak theory isn’t true, what’s clear is that we need more oversight of this risky research, both in the United States and in China.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA