The Risk of Future Pandemics: Gain of Function Research in American Institutions
A look at some of the misrepresented motives and unnecessary risks in modern scientific research.
The United States government is continuing to award new grants to virology research involving what can only be described as gain of function methodology. With the world still recovering from the economic and societal impacts of the pandemic that defined the first half of the decade, it is vital that our scientific community and the methods employed in new research efforts are kept under a watchful eye. Financial incentives and a cultural tendency to abandon traditional approaches in favor of new, more technological methods create an environment all too inviting for research centers to engage in objectionable practices in spite of potential consequences.
Vaccine production is particularly susceptible to dangerous engineering as can be clearly seen in the leading modern strategies. The example laid out in the article is on a small scale with a comparatively moderate budget. However, after sifting through the vague pretenses and academic jargon it offers a perfect representation of some of the unnecessary risks and misrepresented incentives at play in scientific research today.
“To prepare for future coronavirus (CoV) pandemics, it is desirable to generate vaccines capable of eliciting neutralizing antibody responses against diverse CoVs.”
Project Number 1R01AI170928-01A1 | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases | 2023
One such project at the Scripps Research Institute revolves around the creation of vaccines capable of eliciting neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses against a diverse range of coronaviruses. The primary aim is to have vaccines at the ready in preparation for the future coronavirus pandemics the scientists seem quite confident are just around the corner. Their confidence may be warranted considering the specific research methodology laid out in the grant is what’s known as rational reverse vaccine engineering.
Traditional vaccine development often starts with identifying antigens from the pathogen and using them to create a vaccine. In rational reverse engineering, the process is somewhat reversed. Instead of starting with the antigens, scientists begin by understanding the immune response that is needed to combat the pathogen. Then the scientists manipulate the virus by accelerating its evolution in a variety of controlled environments until it has the proper characteristics to allow for the isolation of the “super antibodies” used in the vaccines.
Why such a questionable methodology? The project details lay that out in Aim #2 - prime boost immunization strategies. This refers to a vaccination approach that involves giving an initial "prime" dose of a vaccine followed by a subsequent "boost" dose of the same vaccine or a different but related vaccine. The immune system recognizes the antigens from the prime dose as foreign and mounts an immune response. The booster dose, administered after a certain time interval, ramps up the immune response by introducing more of the same antigens as the previous dose. This results in a higher quantity of antibodies in the bloodstream as well and a heightened immune response.
While the scientific basis of this research seems compelling, closer examination reveals a complex web of ethical considerations. The manipulation of viruses and the potential creation of super bugs to go along with the “super antibodies” could easily lead to a deadly outbreak of illness if there were even minor mistakes in safety procedures or equipment malfunctions. Moreover the likelihood of such an outbreak being particularly dangerous and communicable due to it’s artificial nature is immense, as is the potential for traditional treatment methodologies to be rendered ineffective against the lab-made pathogen. Additional ethical quandaries extend to the repercussions of priming and boosting the immune system with antigens. Such a heightened immune response carries potential unintended consequences such as cardiovascular inflammation.
The focus on vaccines as a preventive measure, especially those given to a large population, carries obvious financial incentives when compared to the research and development of traditional treatments for diseases. Vaccines, by nature, are designed to prevent diseases rather than treat them, often requiring large-scale distribution to significant percentage of the population. This volume-based approach can result in significant revenues for vaccine manufacturers, especially when the vaccine addresses what is perceived as a widespread health threat. Companies manufacturing vaccines typically hold patents for their products as well, granting them a monopoly over the production and distribution that results in significant profits.
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the largest loss of personal freedoms in modern history, upending society by giving governments an excuse to exert unprecedented levels of control over every aspect of society. The effects of this pandemic were universally devastating. From economic turmoil to the illness itself, to the ever-increasing reports of the vaccine-related fatalities, the years of the COVID-19 pandemic harmed hundreds of millions and served very few. Beneficiaries included companies like Johnson & Johnson, which gained billions upon billions of dollars in profits while poverty rates for every day people continued to rise.
The United States government must take more responsibility for the types of research it funds if another global crisis is to be avoided. Similarly, financial conflicts of interest in pharmaceutical development need to be addressed so as to engineering efforts are aimed at improving human welfare rather than increasing profits. In the meantime the topic can’t disappear from public conversation, despite how eager everyone is to put the past few years behind us, as many similar projects have been launched this year on a viruses as damaging as Hepatitis and HIV.
-The Shultz Report by M. Shultz