Are the gains from gain-of-function research worth the risks?
Gain-of-function research can make pathogens more infectious and deadly. It also enables scientists to prepare remedies in advance.
Scientists have long argued that gain-of-function research, which can make viruses and other infectious agents more contagious or more deadly, was necessary to develop therapies and vaccines to counter the pathogens in case they were used for biological warfare. As the SARS-CoV-2 origins are being investigated, one prominent theory suggests it had leaked from a biolab that conducted gain-of-function research, causing a global pandemic that claimed nearly 6.9 million lives. Now some question the wisdom of engaging in this type of research, stating that the risks may far outweigh the benefits.
“Gain-of-function research means genetically changing a genome in a way that might enhance the biological function of its genes, such as its transmissibility or the range of hosts it can infect,” says George Church, professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. This can occur through direct genetic manipulation as well as by encouraging mutations while growing successive generations of micro-organism in culture. “Some of these changes may impact pathogenesis in a way that is hard to anticipate in advance,” Church says.
In the wake of the global pandemic, the pros and cons of gain-of-function research are being fiercely debated. Some scientists say this type of research is vital for preventing future pandemics or for preparing for bioweapon attacks. Others consider it another disaster waiting to happen. The Government Accounting Office issued a report charging that a framework developed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) provided inadequate oversight of this potentially deadly research. There’s a movement to stop it altogether. In January, the Viral Gain-of-Function Research Moratorium Act (S. 81) was introduced into the Senate to cease awarding federal research funding to institutions doing gain-of-function studies.
While testifying before the House COVID Origins Select Committee on March 8th, Robert Redfield, former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that COVID-19 may have resulted from an accidental lab leak involving gain-of-function research. Redfield said his conclusion is based upon the “rapid and high infectivity for human-to-human transmission, which then predicts the rapid evolution of new variants.”
“It is a very, very, very small subset of life science research that could potentially generate a potential pandemic pathogen,” said Gerald Parker, associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University.
“In my opinion,” Redfield continues, “the COVID-19 pandemic presents a case study on the potential dangers of such research. While many believe that gain-of-function research is critical to get ahead of viruses by developing vaccines, in this case, I believe that was the exact opposite.” Consequently, Redfield called for a moratorium on gain-of-function research until there is consensus about the value of such risky science.
What constitutes risky?
The Federal Select Agent Program lists 68 specific infectious agents as risky because they are either very contagious or very deadly. In order to work with these 68 agents, scientists must register with the federal government. Meanwhile, research on deadly pathogens that aren’t easily transmitted, or pathogens that are quite contagious but not deadly, can be conducted without such oversight. “If you’re not working with select agents, you’re not required to register the research with the federal government,” says Gerald Parker, associate dean for Global One Health at Texas A&M University. But the 68-item list may not have everything that could possibly become dangerous or be engineered to be dangerous, thus escaping the government’s scrutiny—an issue that new regulations aim to address.
In January 2017, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued additional guidance. It required federal departments and agencies to follow a series of steps when reviewing proposed research that could create, transfer, or use potential pandemic pathogens resulting from the enhancement of a pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence in humans.
In defining risky pathogens, OSTP included viruses that were likely to be highly transmissible and highly virulent, and thus very deadly. The Proposed Biosecurity Oversight Framework for the Future of Science, outlined in 2023, broadened the scope to require federal review of research “that is reasonably anticipated to enhance the transmissibility and/or virulence of any pathogen” likely to pose a threat to public health, health systems or national security. Those types of experiments also include the pathogens’ ability to evade vaccines or therapeutics, or diagnostic detection.
However, Parker says that dangers of generating a pandemic-level germ are tiny. “It is a very, very, very small subset of life science research that could potentially generate a potential pandemic pathogen.” Since gain-of-function guidelines were first issued in 2017, only three such research projects have met those requirements for HHS review. They aimed to study influenza and bird flu. Only two of those projects were funded, according to the NIH Office of Science Policy. For context, NIH funded approximately 11,000 of the 54,000 grant applications it received in 2022.
Guidelines governing gain-of-function research are being strengthened, but Church points out they aren’t ideal yet. “They need to be much clearer about penalties and avoiding positive uses before they would be enforceable.”
What do we gain from gain-of-function research?
The most commonly cited reason to conduct gain-of-function research is for biodefense—the government’s ability to deal with organisms that may pose threats to public health.
In the era of mRNA vaccines, the advance preparedness argument may be even less relevant.
“The need to work with potentially dangerous viruses is central to our preparedness,” Parker says. “It’s essential that we know and understand the basic biology, microbiology, etc. of some of these dangerous pathogens.” That includes increasing our knowledge of the molecular mechanisms by which a virus could become a sustained threat to humans. “Knowing that could help us detect [risks] earlier,” Parker says—and could make it possible to have medical countermeasures, like vaccines and therapeutics, ready.
Most vaccines, however, aren’t affected by this type of research. Essentially, scientists hope they will never need to use it. Moreover, Paul Mango, HSS former deputy chief of staff for policy, and author of the 2022 book Warp Speed, says he believes that in the era of mRNA vaccines, the advance preparedness argument may be even less relevant. “That’s because these vaccines can be developed and produced in less than 12 months, unlike traditional vaccines that require years of development,” he says.
Can better oversight guarantee safety?
Another situation, which Parker calls unnecessarily dangerous, is when regulatory bodies cannot verify that the appropriate biosafety and biosecurity controls are in place.
Gain-of-function studies, Parker points out, are conducted at the basic research level, and they’re performed in high-containment labs. “As long as all the processes, procedures and protocols are followed and there’s appropriate oversight at the institutional and scientific level, it can be conducted safely.”
Globally, there are 69 Biosafety Level 4 (BSL4) labs operating, under construction or being planned, according to recent research from King’s College London and George Mason University for Global BioLabs. Eleven of these 18 high-containment facilities that are planned or under construction are in Asia. Overall, three-quarters of the BSL4 labs are in cities, increasing public health risks if leaks occur.
Researchers say they are confident in the oversight system for BSL4 labs within the U.S. They are less confident in international labs. Global BioLabs’ report concurs. It gives the highest scores for biosafety to industrialized nations, led by France, Australia, Canada, the U.S. and Japan, and the lowest scores to Saudi Arabia, India and some developing African nations. Scores for biosecurity followed similar patterns.
“There are no harmonized international biosafety and biosecurity standards,” Parker notes. That issue has been discussed for at least a decade. Now, in the wake of SARS and the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists and regulators are likely to push for unified oversight standards. “It’s time we got serious about international harmonization of biosafety and biosecurity standards and guidelines,” Parker says. New guidelines are being worked on. The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) outlined its proposed recommendations in the document titled Proposed Biosecurity Oversight Framework for the Future of Science.
The debates about whether gain-of-function research is useful or poses unnecessary risks to humanity are likely to rage on for a while. The public too has a voice in this debate and should weigh in by communicating with their representatives in government, or by partaking in educational forums or initiatives offered by universities and other institutions. In the meantime, scientists should focus on improving the research regulations, Parker notes. “We need to continue to look for lessons learned and for gaps in our oversight system,” he says. “That’s what we need to do right now.”
Podcast: Should Scientific Controversies Be Silenced?
The recent Joe Rogan/Spotify controversy prompts the consideration of tough questions about expertise, trust, gatekeepers, and dissent.
The "Making Sense of Science" podcast features interviews with leading medical and scientific experts about the latest developments and the big ethical and societal questions they raise. This monthly podcast is hosted by journalist Kira Peikoff, founding editor of the award-winning science outlet Leaps.org.
The recent Joe Rogan/Spotify backlash over the misinformation presented in his recent episode on the Covid-19 vaccines raises some difficult and important bioethical questions for society: How can people know which experts to trust? What should big tech gatekeepers do about false claims promoted on their platforms? How should the scientific establishment respond to heterodox viewpoints from experts who disagree with the consensus? When is silencing of dissent merited, and when is it problematic? Journalist Kira Peikoff asks infectious disease physician and pandemic scholar Dr. Amesh Adalja to weigh in.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, Senior Scholar, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and an infectious disease physician
Listen to the Episode
Kira Peikoff was the editor-in-chief of Leaps.org from 2017 to 2021. As a journalist, her work has appeared in The New York Times, Newsweek, Nautilus, Popular Mechanics, The New York Academy of Sciences, and other outlets. She is also the author of four suspense novels that explore controversial issues arising from scientific innovation: Living Proof, No Time to Die, Die Again Tomorrow, and Mother Knows Best. Peikoff holds a B.A. in Journalism from New York University and an M.S. in Bioethics from Columbia University. She lives in New Jersey with her husband and two young sons. Follow her on Twitter @KiraPeikoff.
Scientists Are Studying How to Help Dogs Have Longer Lives, in a Bid to Further Our Own
Feeding dogs only once a day is showing health benefits in a large study, scientists report.
The sad eyes. The wagging tail. The frustrated whine. The excited bark. Dogs know how to get their owners to fork over the food more often.
The extra calories dogs get from feeding patterns now used by many Americans may not be good for them from a health and longevity viewpoint. In research from a large study called the Dog Aging Project, canines fed once a day had better scores on cognition tests and lower odds of developing diseases of organs throughout the body: intestinal tract, mouth and teeth, bones and joints, kidneys and bladder, and liver and pancreas.
Fewer than 1 in 10 dog owners fed their furry friends once daily, while nearly three fourths provided two daily meals.
“Most veterinarians have been led to believe that feeding dogs twice a day is optimal, but this is a relatively new idea that has developed over the past few decades with little supportive evidence from a health standpoint,” said Matt Kaeberlein, PhD, Co-Director of the Dog Aging Project, a professor of pathology and Director of the Healthy Aging and Longevity Research Institute at the University of Washington. Kaeberlein studies basic mechanisms of aging to find ways of extending the healthspan, the number of years of life lived free of disease. It’s not enough to extend the lifespan unless declines in biological function and risks of age-related diseases are also studied, he believes, hence the healthspan.
The Dog Aging Project is studying tens of thousands of dogs living with their owners in the real world, not a biology laboratory. The feeding study is the first of several reports now coming from the project based on owners’ annual reports of demographics, physical activity, environment, dog behavior, diet, medications and supplements, and health status. It has been posted on bioRxiv as it goes through peer review.
“All available evidence suggests that most biological mechanisms of aging in dogs will be conserved in humans. It just happens much faster in dogs.”
“The Dog Aging Project is one of the most exciting in the longevity space,” said David A. Sinclair, professor in the Department of Genetics and co-director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard Medical School. “Not only is it important to help our companions live longer and healthier, but because they are like people and share the same environment and many of the lifestyles as their owners, they are the perfect model for human longevity interventions.”
The epigenetic clock — and specifically changes in gene expression resulting from methylation of cytosine and guanine in the DNA — provides the critical connection between aging in dogs and people. “All available evidence suggests that most biological mechanisms of aging in dogs will be conserved in humans,” Kaeberlein said. “It just happens much faster in dogs.” These methylation changes, called the “methylomes,” have been associated with rates of aging in dogs, humans, and also mice.
In a 2020 study young dogs matched with young adults and aged dogs matched with older adults showed the greatest similarities in methylomes. In the Cell Systems report, Tina Wang of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote that the methylome “can be used to quantitatively translate the age-related physiology experienced by one organism (i.e., a model species like dog) to the age at which physiology in a second organism is most similar (i.e., a second model or humans).” This allows rates of aging in one species to be mapped onto aging in another species, providing “a compelling tool in the quest to understand aging and identify interventions for maximizing healthy lifespan.”
In the Dog Aging Project study, 8% of 24,238 owners fed their dogs once daily, the same as the percentage of owners serving three daily meals. Twice-daily feedings were most common (73%), and just over 1 in 10 owners (11%) “free fed” their dogs by just filling up the bowl whenever it was empty — most likely Rover’s favorite option.
“The notion of breakfast, lunch, and dinner for people in the United States is not based on large studies that compared three meals a day to two meals a day, or to four, “ said Kate E. Creevy, chief veterinary officer with the Dog Aging Project and associate professor at Texas A&M University. “It’s more about what we are accustomed to. Similarly, there are not large population studies comparing outcomes of dogs fed once, twice, or three times a day.”
“We do not recommend that people change their dogs’ diets based on this report,” Creevy emphasized. “It’s important to understand the difference between research that finds associations versus research that finds cause and effect.”
To establish cause and effect, the Dog Aging Project will follow their cohort over many years. Then, Creevy said, “We will be able to determine whether the associations we have found with feeding frequency are causes, or effects, or neither.”
While not yet actionable, the feeding findings fit with biology across a variety of animals, Kaeberlein said, including indicators that better health translates into longer healthspans. He said that caloric restriction and perhaps time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting — all ways that some human diets are structured — can have a positive impact on the biology of aging by allowing the gastrointestinal tract to have time each day to rest and repair itself, just as sleep benefits the brain through rest.
Timing of meals is also related to the concept of ketogenesis, Kaeberlein explained. Without access to glucose, animals switch over to a ketogenic state in which back-up systems produce energy through metabolic pathways that generate ketones. Mice go into this state very quickly, after a few hours or an overnight fast, while people shift to ketogenesis more slowly, from a few hours to up to 36 hours for people on typical Western diets, Kaeberlein said.
Dogs are different. They take at least two days to shift to ketogenesis, suggesting they have evolved to need fewer meals that are spaced out rather than the multiple daily meals plus snacks that people prefer.
As this relates to longevity, Kaeberlein said that a couple of studies show that mice who are fed a ketogenic diet have longer lifespans (years of life regardless of health). “For us, the next step is to analyze the composition of the dogs’ diets or the relationship of multiple daily feedings with obesity,” he said. “Maybe not being obese is related to better health.”
To learn more, the Dog Aging Project needs dogs — lots of dogs! Kaeberlein wants at least 100,000 dogs, including small dogs, large dogs, dogs of all ages. Puppies are needed for the researchers to follow across their lifespan. The project has an excellent website where owners can volunteer to participate.
Nutritional strategies are often not built around sound scientific principles, Kaeberlein said. In human nutrition, people have tried all kinds of diets over the years, including some that were completely wrong. Kaeberlein and his colleagues in the Dog Aging Project want to change that, at least for people’s canine companions, and hopefully, as a result, give dogs added years of healthy life and provide clues for human nutrition.
After that, maybe they can do something about those sad eyes and the frustrated whine.