top of page
Search

The Ethics of Modifying Potential Pandemic Pathogens

Table of Contents

  • Abstract

  • Background Information 

  • Current Global Policies

    • World Health Organization

    • European Union

    • United States

    • United Kingdom

    • Australia

    • Russia

    • Japan

    • China

    • Patterns

  • Potential Impacts

    • Harms

    • Benefits

  • Ethical Frameworks

    • Stakeholders and Values

    • Consequentialism

    • Deontology

    • Virtue Ethics

  • Final Stance


Background Information

This paper will address the ethical concerns associated with conducting Gain-of-function research by examining practices currently followed by scientists or required by governments and organizations engaged in oversight. Over the past 20 years there have been mainstream developments of research focused on making viruses more transmissible, lethal, or altering what species are infected. These kinds of modifications will be described in this paper as gain-of-function research (GOFR) due to the viruses gaining new functions/ abilities. One of many examples of this research took place in the United States during 2012; there was research to increase the lethality of an avian flu, but it did not come to light until after lab-mishaps occurred (National Institutes of Health, 2016). This study sparked the creation of new laws in the United States and brought global attention to the subject. 


Although this research has the potential to be harmful, it also has the potential to be beneficial. Scientists may gain the ability to prevent epidemics, pandemics, and to discover the genes on viruses that cause transmissible  disease through the execution of GOFR. The weighing of the risks and benefits of GOFR leads to the ultimate question of whether the pursuit of this information is ethical based on the risks it poses to human life and human society. By having a deeper understanding of these risks in conjunction with the benefits, a conclusion can be made as to whether GOFR is ever ethically permissible, and if so when and under what circumstances it should be conducted. We, as informed citizens, must also ask the question of have we gone too far in the pursuit of truth through the understanding of genetic code? 


Current Global Policies

The vast majority of people are unaware of what GOFR entails, which is why it is important to detail what it is as well as some of its history. Throughout this paper, GOFR will be defined as “studies that increase the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.” (NSABB Roster, 2016) This definition is to be differentiated from the scientific term which is defined as a change that enhances protein activity, which is a very general use of the term and is insufficiently specific for the focus of this paper. The history behind gain-of-function is very murky, however, some scientists hypothesize the first instance of GOFR occurred in 1977 with the Russian flu pandemic. According to Dr. Rozo, the Principal Director for Biotechnology at the Department of Defense, and Dr. Gronvall, a member of the Center of Health at Johns Hopkins, the Russian Flu pandemic “was probably not a natural event, as the genetic sequence of the virus was nearly identical to the sequences of decades-old strains.” (Rozo & Gronvall, 2015) Researchers are unaware of other public cases of altering viruses and disease, until the turn of the Century. 


Throughout this paper, GOFR will be defined as “studies that increase the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.” NSABB Roster, 2016


Over the last 20 years, more developments have taken place which may be a cause of concern to some. In 2001, Australian scientists attempted to create a virus to make mice infertile to help solve the country’s infestation issues. Surprisingly, their experiments led to the creation of a deadly virus that killed almost 90% of the mice on which it was tested on. The virus was also resistant to vaccines given to the lab mice. (Jackson, 2001). Non-human viruses are not the only subject of the more recent GOFR. In 2014 U.S. scientists increased the lethality of an already deadly human H5N1 avian flu. (Imai, 2013).  The avian flu research was a spark for concern due to lab safety issues in addition to biosafety hazards.Currently the U.S. has policies addressing the H5N1 incident which will be elaborated on later.  In 2015 a bat coronavirus study in China created a recombinant mouse and bat virus that, when tested on mice, resulted in increased mortality among both mice and rats (Zeng, 2016). The risky research was funded by the U.S. Government, leading citizens to question the true intentions of this research. 


World Health Organization and European Union

With regard to international organizations, the two mainly of focus are the The World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Union (EU).The WHO has a document titled: “WHO Coordinated Scientific Advice Procedure for health product research and development” where they outline to an international audience, on pages 3 to 9, how research should be conducted. There is no specific process outlining how to execute GOFR (Research for Health Team, 2021). It also does not outline consequences for those who go against the policy but this to be expected since the WHO is a neutral body. The EU has placed GOFR regulations through their European Academies' Science Advisory Council (EASAC) for all member-states to adhere to. The document sets guidelines and was started after the American H5N1 lab-leak in conjunction with other international discussions (ECASC, 2015). 


United States

In the United States, there is a strict policy with regard to gain-of-function. The research must be approved by the National Science Advisory Board of Biosecurity (NSABB). The catalyst for the establishment of the committee occurred in 2004. Policies began being made more frequently after the leak of a more lethal H5N1 avian influenza. (National Institutes of Health, 2016). As of today there are no punishments outlined for conducting GOF, but funding has been cut from “risky” projects. (Kaiser, 2017). The advisory committee has also analyzed the ethical and moral issues of the technology in their “Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-Function Research” (NSABB Roster, 2016).


United Kingdom

“[Researchers] must submit their proposals for research to the local Biological Safety Committee, ensuring that they include justification for the experiments, detail of the potential outcomes, and indicate that they have thoroughly considered less dangerous alternatives and compared the potential risks and benefits” ECASC, Appendix 5, 2015

The United Kingdom’s approach is focused on the researcher's perspective. This process lists steps to take in order to get approval to execute GOFR. “[Researchers] must submit their proposals for research to the local Biological Safety Committee, ensuring that they include justification for the experiments, detail of the potential outcomes, and indicate that they have thoroughly considered less dangerous alternatives and compared the potential risks and benefits” (ECASC, Appendix 5, 2015). It is important to note that these risks and benefits are not entirely made clear although this issue is addressed in the European Union's comments on the issue which come later. While having these researchers ask for permission, it also brings up the concern of whether or not all of these scientists will detail all of their procedural details to their respective Biological Safety Committee. If a researcher knows their experiment is risky, could they downplay what they propose to pursue? 


Australia

As of late 2021, Australia has begun the process of creating a new system to analyze how GOFR should be conducted. Although it is still a part of the British commonwealth, Australia seems to potentially hold itself to different research practices pertaining to GOF. However the law has been reviewed by the Australian Prime Minister and it is currently being debated. The draft requires multiple approvals from different Australian committees including the Office of the Gene Technology (OGTR), the Animal Ethics Committee (AEC), and the Human Research Ethics Committee in order for research to occur. What is interesting is that the criteria for approval by those organizations are never clearly defined. Ethics and safety are mentioned throughout the bill yet the ethical aspect is left vague (NHMRC, 2021). 


Russia

Moving onto Russia, they have their own National Bioethics Committee, but there are no explicit laws pertaining to how GOFR should be conducted (UNESCO, 2010). It is unclear as to whether Russia has any boundaries when it comes to practicing ethical standards but it is evident that there is some effort to be ethical.


Japan

 Similar to Russia, Japan also has a national bioethics committee with no current policies about GOFR, but Japan is in accordance with the research regulations put in place by WHO and EU (Iijima, 2019), (Akabayashi, 2020).


China

China also has one law that pertains to bioethics, but not specifically pertaining to GOF. This “Biosecurity law” broadly describes values that should be considered and what is and what is not ethical is not clearly defined (Wang, 2021) (Haynes, 2021).


Patterns

In delving into the commonalities between these countries and organizations, most regulations were implemented after the H5N1 incident occurred. Beside some laboratory safety requirements outlined by the WHO, there are not many standard practices agreed to or shared among the countries enumerated above. WHO cannot enforce their guidelines by force either, leaving room for countries to decide what is and what is not permissible on their own. Despite this freedom it also leaves room for risky research environments to form.


Potential Impacts

In order to offer ethical judgments on GOFR, it is important to acknowledge that the future is unknown. Scenarios in the following section are going to be hypothetical, however, still plausible due to the current facts gathered by researchers.


Harms

Beginning with potential harms, there are three blatantly plausible outcomes from GOFR ranging from pandemics, a new arms race, and biological warfare. Previous lab leaks have occurred in laboratories around the world. In the U.S. alone there have been three well documented cases ranging from anthrax, to H5N1 and even smallpox. All of these incidents took place during the 2010-2014 period while GOFR was unregulated but the laboratories were subjugated to Biosafety Standards. As the Cambridge working group emphasizes, “[Accidental infection] incidents have been accelerating and have been occurring on average over twice a week with regulated pathogens in academic and government labs across the country.” (Charter Members, 2014). These “incidents” are the first link in a new lethal pathogen spreading, causing a pandemic. However, if it is possible for GOFR to be conducted in a safe manner, these incidents can be avoided by implementing new policies being put in place for when a lab leak occurs. 


The current safety protocols in place where the research is conducted, at least in the United States, are some of the most rigorous in the world. These labs use the Biosafety Level (BSL) Scale. BSL is rated from 1 to 4 with one being the lowest required safety and 4 being the maximum. BSL-4 labs are extremely strict and contained; only BSL-4 research may be conducted in a BSL-4 lab. However, there are less than sixty in the world, making it difficult to conduct research in a general sense due to its scarcity. Most GOFR is conducted in BSL-3 laboratories which do not require the same expansive tools as BSL-4 labs. Expanding BSL-4 laboratories would be beneficial, yet the costs would be immense and unlikely to occur, reducing the ability to incorporate additional policies. (Koblentz, 2021). If all GOFR was conducted in BSL-4 labs it could result in fewer mishaps, but there is no data to support this claim. 


One of the major harms that can occur is an arms race of GOFR technology around the globe. Governments do not want to fall behind and put themselves at risk of victimization, this is exemplified by both World War II and the Cold war where the advancement of nuclear technology was most prevalent in order to “be ahead”. In April 1939, a group of German scientists began developing Nuclear Technology under Hitler although it was not a main focus of the regime (Atomic Heritage Foundation, 2016). About 5 months later in August 1939, Franklin Roosevelt received a message from Albert Einstein about this technology. This resulted in  the U.S. recruiting  scientists to work in a secret group called the “Manhattan Project” (Atomic Heritage Foundation, 2016), (History.com Editors, 2020).

Next, in 1943, the U.S. launched the Alsos Mission which was an attempt to spy on German Scientists to see their progression (World Nuclear Association, 2020). The same year Project Y resulted in the first atomic bombs tested and detonated (U.S Department of Energy).

However in 1944, evidence from the Alsos mission showed Germany was not near fully developing a nuclear weapon and they were only able to create a reactor (Atomic Heritage Foundation, 2016). By creating this technology in the “right hands”, the United States fulfilled its duty to science by preventing the axis powers from having even more weaponry to exert onto vulnerable populations. In spite of their duty,  Hiroshima and Nagaski were dropped on innocent cities, resulting in hundreds of thousands of casualties. 


The premise of superiority led to the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) formulated during the Cold War  is defined as a “principle of deterrence founded on the notion that a nuclear attack by one superpower would be met with an overwhelming nuclear counterattack such that both the attacker and the defender would be annihilated” (The Editors of Encyclopaedia, 2021). The same concept can be applied to GOFR since it may have similar lethal effects as nuclear technology. 


Biowarfare may ensue if GOFR is permitted, demonstrating patterns previously seen in the past. Imperial Japan previously used bioweapons, such as botulism, anthrax etc, on China during 1932 to 1945. According to the Federation of American Scientists, it is estimated that around 200,000 Chinese people “died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases” released (FAS, 2000). It is also important to note that Imperial Japan was not the first to create these weapons, but it seems as if they are one of the first to utilize them on a vulnerable population. This use of biological warfare tactics was not only seen by the Japanese, but by the United States itself. Agent Orange was a biological agent intended to kill trees in Vietnam. 


According to the Federation of American Scientists, it is estimated that around 200,000 Chinese people “died of bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and other diseases” released. FAS, 2000


Agent Orange was a biological agent intended to kill trees during the Vietnam war. In spite of the intentions, not only did the agent kill trees and vegetation but civilians themselves. As of today nearly 300,000 U.S. veterans alone have died, excluding the 58,000 who died from the agent during the war (Foster, 2015). Scientists would not have been able to assess the impacts of this new biological weapon in the moment of its conception yet there were still no tests to see any potential risks. While the U.S. government does provide aid to veterans and civilians affected by Agent Orange today, its overall impact cannot be neglected (Black, 2019) (Golowin Legal, 2020). 


In more recent times, biological and chemical weaponry is still being utilized. In 2013 in Syria the Assad regime “released the nerve agent sarin on its own people in the Ghouta district of Damascus, killing more than 1,400 Syrians” (Price, 2021). The continued use of these weapons have been used multiple times as well “at least 50 times” according to Ned Price, a U.S. state department spokesman. There were 1084 direct deaths caused by chemical weapon exposure with long term side effects also being an issue (Rodriguez-Llanes, 2018). It is evident that these lethal weapons are still used in modern times by government officials, but if a more widespread version could be utilized, would it? 


Benefits

Despite these seemingly adverse possibilities and notions of history, there are still immense benefits with conducting GOFR. Again, the proposals listed are all potential outcomes and not guaranteed, but it is equally important to note that since GOFR is a new technology. The benefits may include a greater understanding of the functions of viruses, advanced vaccines and pandemic prevention. 


A greater understanding of viruses can alter the way disease is treated. GOFR can potentially find the coding to prevent viruses from replicating or decoding viruses to understand which RNA or DNA code gives a disease human lethality. This discovery can also lead to preventing the spread of disease by discovering the coding behind how certain viruses are transmitted. But it is important to ask, is there any evidence that would support the possibility of this knowledge being found? And surprisingly there is, the risky 2014 H5N1 study showed “(i) the new property of transmissibility, (ii) the gene(s) involved, and (iii) the specific mutations associated with the GOF” (Selgelid, 2016). With three new properties being found, there is at least elementary evidence that the genetic code of viruses may be unlocked, similar to the human genome project.  In turn this means viral decoding could lead to scientific control over viral replication as well if proteins are discovered that inhibit viral propagation, eliminating human disease.


Alternatively, GOFR can also be used in early vaccine production, allowing for more people to be immune to lethal viruses sooner. By being proactive, the majority of people are assisted since there is a basis for developing measures to deal with the virus. In addition to the vaccinated, those who are immunocompromised would also benefit from herd immunity. If a pandemic were to occur, vaccination may already be available or vaccines may be produced in a similar fashion as they were for COVID, using MRNA technology. However, it is possible that these vaccines will be met with resistance, but this is also a possibility with all new medical technology. There is also a question of how long will these new vaccines be effective for, but it is impossible to measure at the moment and cannot be thoroughly substantiated. 


Although GOFR currently has limited policies specifically pertaining to how it should be conducted it has the ability to be a device for destruction as well as be a means to eradicate viral disease. The dilemma at hand calls for an ethical analysis of the next steps the scientific and global community should take in pursuing this world-changing research. 


With all of the practical and policy information outlined it is vital to consider the ethics behind this research. It is important to establish first who is impacted by this technology before considering ethical frameworks. All life, regardless of species, is affected by disease. The history of GOFR demonstrates that animal populations  (e.g., mice, bats, rats, etc) can be decimated by lethal viruses. However, this paper will focus on the potential effects of GOFR on humans. Again, these technologies have already affected humanity if we assume the Russian Flu pandemic was a result of GOFR (Rozo and Gronvall, 2015). This assumption would also indicate the modified viruses are able to spread globally. A subset of people affected by gain-of-function research are scientists and virologists themselves. These researchers, who are the experimenters on the viruses, have both personal and role-related ethical concerns and commitments related to their roles. 


Ethical Frameworks

Stakeholders and Values

"Ethics" by masondan is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.
"Ethics" by masondan is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

When taking into consideration ethical frameworks establishing values is important to note since bias can be present depending on what value is selected. This paper will focus on Safety and Responsibility pertaining to GOFR as well as its relation to the pursuit of truth. 


Safety is not always guaranteed, but when an action can affect more people than the perpetrators, the validity of the act must come into question. A common measure of safety in the scientific realm is a biosafety level (BSL). BSL is a set of precautions required to isolate dangerous biological agents in an enclosed laboratory facility (Galvani & Lipsitch, 2015). The levels of containment range from the lowest biosafety level 1 (BSL-1) to the highest at level 4 (BSL-4) (Galvani & Lipsitch, 2015). GOFR is typically conducted in BSL3 and in the United States, protocols and enforcement are relatively stringent (Galvani & Lipsitch, 2015).

However, based on numbers proposed by Dr. Galvani and Dr. Lipsitch, a 10 year research program of ten laboratories at US BSL3 standards would run a nearly 20% risk of resulting in at least one laboratory-acquired infection, which may initiate a chain of transmission (Galvani & Lipsitch, 2015). 


The safety of citizens through conducting GOFR is a central aspect since, in order to qualify the GOFR definition, there must be an increase in the lethality of the virus. If the safety of scientists was jeopardized, it could lead to a chain reaction sparking a horrific epidemic, if not, a pandemic. 


The issue outlined above deals with the responsibility of researchers and the government in pursuing GOFR. If a person outside of the laboratory contracts an experimental GOFR illness, are the scientists responsible? It truly depends on the circumstances. For example, in the unlikely scenario a person successfully breaks into the laboratory, it would not be the fault of the researchers but rather the security in the facility. Exposing the public to an entity outside of the vicinity would pose issues because there may be properties about the virus that are still yet to be discovered. Someone outside an organization suffering from an illness they had no input in creating also questions whether people can be responsible for spreading/contracting illness. In this atypical scenario, they should be responsible since the alteration of GOFR is caused by humans, not nature itself. 


However, the issue of a potential virus touches on the topic of why GOFR is being practiced in the first place and the idea of scientists being responsible for the betterment of society. This idea can be seen with Jonah Salk creating the polio vaccine, altering how children interact today, or the discovery of penicillin which changed how doctors approach bacterial disease. Yet does this betterment coincide with the pursuit of truth? Not all truth will necessarily lead to the enhancement of society as seen with the development of nuclear technology especially throughout the Cold War. 


Tension between global powers was the main benefactor in the advancement of nuclear chemistry from the end of WWII up until the fall of the USSR, although tension currently persists. However nowadays there is a more prominent use of this technology which is nuclear power. Although the advancement assists in the furthering of sustainable energy, there is still the possibility of mishaps despite the seemingly good intentions. It is understood that the Chernobyl disaster was caused by workers ignoring safety protocols, but there were approximately 600,000 affected by the fallout and 30 deaths related to the accident 3 months after it occured (Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions, 2005). The amount of people affected by Chernobyl fallout is roughly 3 times the amount of deaths caused by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Listwa, 2012). Suffice it to say, this technology, even when put to good use, does not always improve society or quality of life. This same concept can be applied to GOFR. If the quality of life is worsened after a discovery, scientists would be responsible for the acquisition of the knowledge in the first place, deteriorating the value of the discovery overall. 


However, the situation presented leads to an even broader question of if people are responsible for the consequences of their own actions. To some extent, consequences of an action can be predicted. This is especially true in science where a specific action must happen in order for a reaction, or consequence of an action, to occur. These concepts are not limited to science however since humans can also think ahead before committing to an action. For example, a person debating what to say in response to a controversial opinion. If they verbalize their thoughts, a consequence could be a negative reaction, or a positive one. It is an uncertain outcome, which makes it unreliable. But while consequences may not always be the direct cause of a singular person, there is a relation to their original act, making individuals responsible. 


Consequentialism

To tackle other issues presented, it is important to consult different ethical frameworks to gain an understanding of different perspectives on the issue. 


Beginning with consequentialism, the theory that the ethicality of an action is based on the consequences it holds, not the morality of it. Since GOFR is not widespread, there are many potentials and uncertainties that will be presented due to the lack of foundation.

Nonetheless We can hypothesize about the potential consequences of expanded or widespread GOFR since they are not entirely impossible until proven otherwise. 


 There are many beneficial outcomes proposed from conducting gain-of-function research. GOFR may accelerate the development of the prevention and treatment strategies (i.e., vaccines, therapeutics) for dangerous pathogens, saving more lives. A greater understanding of virus coding and how it works in a sense “cracking the code” in a way similar to DNA research. It can theoretically absolve ourselves of finding how each new virus in circulation may transmit through months of studying. Instead we could see through the proteins present on the virus. By understanding these proteins, GOFR could possibly in turn develop more effective vaccines. However, this greater understanding can lead to misuse, including creating a virus using only the most deadly genes. This act is somewhat improbable since not all labs would have access to every lethal virus in existence. However, if nearly all lethal viruses were tested on and had GOFR discoveries, the information could also be spread among scientific communities assisting in the creation of a deadly virus.  


Despite these life-altering benefits, the harms are of the same magnitude including pandemic-causing lab leaks as well as  biowarfare. Depending on the type of transmission, an altered virus may hold pandemic potential. For example, the 1918 Spanish Flu and COVID-19 are respiratory viruses whereas Ebola and HIV are spread via bodily fluids. There are other ways of transmission, but of the ones listed the latter is much more difficult to contain since air cannot be regulated at all times. As mentioned earlier, lab leaks are a possibility and, depending on the transmission of the virus, they may lead to another global pandemic in the future. But it is important to note that there are preventative measures in place. In spite of this fact, these laws may never be 100% effective. This can be seen with a multitude of criminal laws, for example, murder is illegal but were “5.0 murders per 100,000 people in 2019” according to FBI statistics (2019). 


There is a possibility for a mixed outcome, similar to that seen with nuclear technology. If a discovery is made in understanding how viruses work, it may be misused to create lethal bioweapons. However this idea can again be demonstrated in the Cold war. These lethal technologies are created but are left unused, which may be a reality. But it is still uncertain how long they will remain unused since they are still in existence. 


The risks outweigh the benefits since the potential to destroy humanity is greater than the rewards of eradicating pandemic pathogens. Pandemics, while being lethal, are not always a leading cause of death and, as seen with previous pandemics, eventually fade away. The leading cause of death globally in 2019 was heart disease (WHO, 2020). In the United States, at least, the leading cause of death in 2020 was heart disease as well, proving COVID, a pandemic pathogen, did surpass the most prevalent non-viral disease (CDC, 2022).  


Another key ethical framework is Deontology, a principled approach to determine what is right and wrong. Through this framework analyzing constitutions and oaths will be central to the decision making process since principles can guide peoples to decide what is morally right and wrong. 


Deontology

It is important to ask if conducting GOFR violates fundamental principles of governments and those effects on a society as a whole. Beginning with the United States, in the Declaration of Independence, which is very much aligned with the Constitution of the United States, the three main principles outlined are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To some extent GOFR has the ability to harm life as seen in the 2001 mousepox creation, although the Constitution is in reference to humans it is safe to say that the practices followed in that study may be recreated in a research trial for humans. Liberty, however, is in a juxtaposition with life to some extent since scientists and researchers have the freedom to conduct experiments at their own will. Despite that, life is of more value than liberty since it is inherently irreplaceable, through current technology at least (United States’ Constitution,1992). 


In a different approach to the U.S,, the United Kingdom does not fully have a constitution but it does have founding documents dating from 1215. There are still amendments and additions  in this present day and age. One of the main values exhibited by the UK “constitution” is freedom and, as stated previously in the U.S. Constitution, would guarantee scientists the right to practice their research. This act becomes tricky if the research impacts other civilians around them, creating a dilemma as to who is in the right (United Kingdom’s Constitution, 2013). With Australia being a part of the British commonwealth, its own constitution has a very similar constitution and outline of their principles, including freedom (Australia's Constitution,1985). 


Russia, in contrast to the aforementioned countries,  extends its rights to not only freedom, but equality. As mentioned earlier once again, freedom is in the hands of both the citizens and scientists, this act can cause tension. With regard to equality, GOFR does not necessarily pertain to anything equal unless equal access to conducting this research is of interest to a citizen, which there is doubt for (Russian Federation’s Constitution, 2014). Japan pertains to the same rights but Japan also establishes the right to life, which is surprisingly not seen in the Russian constitution (Japan’s Constitution, 1946). 


China, unlike the other countries listed, in addition to equality, outlines privacy and service as values in their constitution. In particular, service is a place of interest as it can be interpreted in different ways with respect to GOFR. This research can be seen as service to those who are suffering but as well to those who are employed at laboratories who conduct these experiments (China (People’s Republic of)'s Constitution, 2018). 


Overall with Life, Liberty and Equality being main principles outlined in these fundamental documents, GOFR has the potential to violate two out of the three, leading it to be unethical by fundamental government principles. 

“I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure'' Tyson, 2001

But although legally GOFR may be questionable, medical principles should also be taken into consideration. The Hippocratic oath was originally proposed by Hippocrates to outline what doctors could and could not do. There is a more modern version of it, which will be focused on.   One of the first statements presented is, “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure'' (Tyson, 2001). It can be argued that GOFR  is conducted to prevent disease in and of itself, as opposed to seeking cures. This would be the ultimate fulfillment of the oath since disease is typically the cause of suffering for many patients. However, there is a catch to this statement since “Above all, I must not play God” (Tyson, 2001). The altering of disease can be viewed as an almost Godly role since supposedly God dictates what happens in the natural world. In addition to this premise, these diseases being tampered with are deadly which could mean there is an element of choosing who lives and dies. Although there is a conflict between these two ideas, the idea that playing God should not be done “[a]bove all” outweighs any benefits from “preventing disease wherever [a doctor] can” (Tyson, 2001).  

“Above all, I must not play God” Tyson, 2001

Yet through analyzing the principles set by governmental outlines of right and wrong, GOFR would not be permissible due to its direct potential to harm life. This sentiment is upheld in the  Hippocratic Oath. 


Virtue Ethics

This principled approach leads into Virtue Ethics where morals are central to decision making, not totally about whether the act is right or wrong. But not all are virtuous in their actions. In order to be a virtuous researcher, morals must be central to the decisions scientists are making. 


Falling back onto historical aspects of biowarfare, the weaponry was intended to kill. Even if the act was morally wrong, the intention was also morally wrong since people who did not commit crimes were also harmed. 


However, biowarfare is not the only place where morals went astray; based on the past it is not unreasonable to conclude that this technology can be misused. Eduard Pernkopf, well known for his anatomy atlas dubbed Pernkopf’s atlas, is an example of such malpractice (Baker, 2019). As a nazi scientist, he used people from internment camps and prisoner executions to experiment and research on (Baker, 2019). It is currently used in medical schools today because of its highly sophisticated drawings of human anatomy (Baker, 2019).

Despite this large medical leap, Pernkopf used people from internment camps and prisoner executions to experiment and research on (Baker, 2019). It is important to consider that not all of the cadavers were necessarily dead at the time of their experimentation. The act of Pernkopf’s research was not virtuous even though it has taught millions of doctors the ins and outs of the human body. But it is still important to note that mistakes can be made in the past and overcome in the present Nuremberg Codes, created after WWII, were designed to prevent torturous experiments on humans from occuring on a widespread scale again, such as ones conducted by Pernkopf (Nuremberg Code). Pertaining to GOF, the act of research would be permissible under the codes since humans are not directly harmed while the experiments are conducted. 


There is another risk of governments violating core principles and laws in order to be “ahead of the game.” Governments can, and have, failed to uphold their own laws and principles with regard to this topic. In the United States, during a period where risky GOFR was banned,  outsourcing the research where GOFR is deemed legal occured recently (Daszak, 2021). In 2014, “[R]isky” GOFR funding was terminated  in the U.S  for 3 years. In spite of this, The National Institute of Health (NIH) provided money to an organization, EcoHealth Alliance, which then funded risky GOFR research in China (Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens, 2021). Although government officials can be held accountable for their actions, they may not be if their population has no knowledge of the topics being discussed.


These factors also bring into question whether the general population is informed about the existence of GOFR. If not, how would the people hold the government accountable? Due to the lack of popularity in the viewing of informational videos, it is reasonable to assume that there is not much public interest pertaining to GOFR (Session 1: Opening Remarks, 2014). Due to this fact, people cannot form a proper opinion, allowing for the government to abuse power. Nobody can be informed about every operation the federal government wishes to pursue, but an issue that can alter the shape of humanity should be further investigated. Since this information has not been widely spread, it can be presumed that the government may have alternative intentions with this research, pinpointing a source of dishonesty.


The intentions analyzed under the Virtue Ethics leads to GOFR being unethical to conduct due to the research potentially being conducted to create deadly weapons. 


Final Stance

I believe that the most ethical decision would be to put a stop to this sector of research since the benefits do not outweigh the benefits it presents.This research has not been fully seen to its truest potential nor do I think it should since mistakes are inevitable with these pathogens. The fact that unintended consequences result from GOFR can be seen in the H5N1 viral research itself, with BSL standards not being accountable for every mishap, and the connections to both nuclear weaponry as well as other bioweapons. Human life should not be toyed around with in the slightest, especially when there are millions of lives at stake. 


By preventing GOFR from happening at all, many ethical dilemmas could become obsolete. Although this proposition is unlikely to be lived out, it has the ability to stop potentially more virulent lab-originated diseases from spreading throughout the globe. One way to accomplish this is by creating a doctrine that prohibits the use of GOFR fully. The consequences of not upholding the doctrine can lead to warfare if not all countries agree to its terms and conditions. Even if countries are in accordance with the doctrine, there is still the question of how it will be upheld. Since global authorities, as of right now, do not possess the power to enforce laws onto countries under its supervision, only individual countries can hold each other accountable. Because not every country has the finances or willingness to engage in conflict over potential technology, it is an unlikely solution. 


Potential Solutions

Another alternative is allowing the research to occur without much limitation if it is inevitable for advancing society. It may be a more probable outcome as well since it may please scientists. One of the main faults of this plan is that if there is to be a major conflict between two nations there is a potential for bioweapons, if created, to be detonated on civilians. Currently, it is still unknown what government intentions are with this kind of technology and only officials know the details. However, the excess freedom may cause even riskier research to occur, jeopardizing more people than before. 


A less extreme take is an international doctrine that allows for some GOFR research. There are two major issues that come with this: the laws are again hard to uphold and they may be too general for a global population to employ. 


While educating the public may be the best option to prevent GOFR happening unregulated. However, there are many complications that follow this idea. Firstly, it is hard to grab people’s attention in order to create actual change or awareness of an issue. Social media, while being a great resource for the spread of information, is also easy for information to puddle at the bottom untouched. This is evidenced again by the less than 1,000 views seen on videos educating the public on GOFR (Session 1: Opening Remarks, 2014). If the topic were to get enough attention, there would be a possibility of altering the future and creating a more unified society. Until that point in time, it is important for information to be freely available to those who wish to understand the issues presented by GOFR. Knowledge is power, especially in times of action. 


Works Cited

“Agent Orange VA Compensation.” Golowin Legal, LLC, 19 May 2022,

Akabayashi, Akira. “A Brief History of Bioethics in Japan.” NCBI, U.S. National Library of

“Australia 1901 (Rev. 1985) Constitution.” Constitute Project , 27 Apr. 2022,

Baker, Keiligh. “Eduard Pernkopf: The Nazi Book of Anatomy Still Used by Surgeons.” BBC,

Black, George, and Christopher Anderson. “The Victims of Agent Orange the U.S. Has

Never Acknowledged.” The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com

Charter Members. The Cambridge Working Group, 14 July 2014,

“China (People's Republic of) 1982 (Rev. 2018) Constitution.” Constitute Project, 27 Apr.

Daszak, Peter. “Ecohealth Letter Contesting Claims.” DocumentCloud, 21 Oct. 2021,

Foster, Haley. “Agent Orange: It's Affecting Veterans and Their Kids.” ND , North Dakota

“Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions.” IAEA, 2005,

“Gain of Function Research Review.” NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research

“Gain of Function: Experimental Applications Relating to ... - EASAC.” Easac, European

Academies Science Advisory Council , Oct. 2015, https://easac.eu/fileadmin/PDF_s

“German Atomic Bomb Project.” Atomic Heritage Foundation, National Museum of

Nuclear Science & History, 18 Oct. 2016, https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/german-atomic-bomb-project. 

Haynes, James. “China's New Biosecurity Law Gives Limited Insight into Government

Priorities and next Steps.” Jamestown, The Jamestown Foundation, 17 Aug. 2021, https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-new-biosecurity-law-gives-limited-insight-into-government-priorities-and-next-steps/. 

History.com Editors. “Manhattan Project.” History, A&E Television Networks, 26 July 2017,

Iijima, Yoshihiko, et al. “An Overview of Ethical Review Committees in Japan: Examining the

Certification Applications of Ethical Review Committees.” Nagoya Journal of Medical Science, Nagoya University, Aug. 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728202/. 

Imai, Masaki, et al. “Appendix C The Two Published H5N1 Papers.” National Center for

Biotechnology Information, 22 June 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206985/. 

“Informing the Public .” OSTI, U.S. Department of Energy ,

Jackson, Ronald J, et al. “Expression of Mouse Interleukin-4 by a Recombinant Ectromelia

Virus Suppresses Cytolytic Lymphocyte Responses and Overcomes Genetic Resistance to Mousepox.” American Society for Microbiology Journal of Virology, 1 Feb. 2001, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.75.3.1205-1210.2001?permanently=true. 

“Japan 1946 Constitution.” Constitute Project , 27 Apr. 2022,

“Japan: Biological Weapons Program.” FAS, Federation of American Scientists , 16 Apr.

Kaiser, Jocelyn. “NIH Lifts 3-Year Ban on Funding Risky Virus Studies.” Science, American

Association for the Advancement of Science, 19 Dec. 2017, https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-lifts-3-year-ban-funding-risky-virus-studies. 

Koblentz, Gregory, and Filippa Lentzos. “Fifty-Nine Labs around World Handle the

“Leading Causes of Death” CDC, Center of Disease Control, 13 January 2022,

Listwa, Dan. “Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects.” K=1 Project, 9 Aug.

“Murder.” FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigation  , 13 Sept. 2019, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-

“National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity Meeting Summary .” National Institute of

NSABB Roster. “Recommendations for the Evaluation and Oversight of Proposed Gain-of-

“Nuremberg Code.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,

“Outline History of Nuclear Energy.” World Nuclear Association, Nov. 2020,

Price, Ned. “Syria: Eighth Anniversary of the Ghouta Chemical Weapons Attack - United

States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, 21 Aug. 2021, https://

“Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens.” National Institutes of

Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 28 Feb. 2022, https://www.nih.gov/news-events/research-involving-potential-pandemic-pathogens. 

Rodriguez-Llanes, Jose M., et al. “Epidemiological Findings of Major Chemical Attacks in

the Syrian War Are Consistent with Civilian Targeting: A Short Report - Conflict and Health.” BioMed Central, 16 Apr. 2018, https://conflictandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13031-018-0150-4. 

Rozo, Michelle, and Gigi Kwik Gronvall. “The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-

Function Debate.” MBio, American Society of Microbiology, 18 Aug. 2015, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/. 

“Russian Federation 1993 (Rev. 2014) Constitution.” Constitute Project , 27 Apr. 2022,

Selgelid, Michael  J. “Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis.” National Center for

Biotechnology Information , National Institute of Health, 8 Aug. 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4996883/. 

“Session 1: Opening Remarks.” YouTube, 24 Dec. 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?

The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Mutual Assured Destruction.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 20

“The Top 10 Causes of Death.” World Health Organization, 9 Dec. 2020,

Tyson, Peter. “The Hippocratic Oath Today.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 27 Mar. 2001,

“UNESCO Country Programming Document: The Republic of Belarus, 2010-2012.”

“United Kingdom 1215 (Rev. 2013) Constitution.” Constitute Project , 14 Apr. 2022,

“United States of America 1789 (Rev. 1992) Constitution.” Constitute Project , 27 Apr. 2022,

Wang, Leifan, et al. “Bioethics in China's Biosecurity Law: Forms, Effects, and Unsettled

Issues.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 16 June 2021, https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/8/1/lsab019/6299199. 

“Who Coordinated Scientific Advice Procedure for Health Product Research and

Development.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 8 July 2021, https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240031043. 

Zeng, Lei-Ping, et al. “Bat Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Like Coronavirus WIV1

Encodes an Extra Accessory Protein, ORFX, Involved in Modulation of the Host Immune Response.” Ecohealth Alliance, July 2016, https://www.ecohealthalliance.

Comments

bottom of page