STAT News: Reader Responses – Gain-of-Function Research & Teh Failure of For-profit Healthcare
First Opinion is STATS dedicated platform for insightful,thought-provoking analysis of the life sciences,featuring contributions from industry experts,healthcare professionals,researchers,and more.
We encourage constructive dialogue around the issues raised in our First Opinion essays and regularly publish selected Letters to the Editor. Share yoru viewpoint by submitting a Letter to the Editor here or through the form at the end of any First Opinion article.
response to: “The NIH ordered me to stop my ‘dangerous’ gain-of-function research. It isn’t dangerous at all,” by Sarah Stanley
https://www.statnews.com/2025/10/06/gain-of-function-research-tuberculosis-expert-nih/
For over a decade, I’ve advocated for increased oversight and restrictions on a specific subset of microbiology research with pandemic potential – research that, through accident or intentional misuse, could trigger a large-scale outbreak.This field, historically known by various names, was formally termed “dangerous gain-of-function” (DGOF) research in a Presidential Executive Order, defined as work that could lead to significant societal consequences by altering infectious agents in ways like increased transmissibility or virulence.
While I continue to believe tighter restrictions are warranted – reserving such research for truly exceptional circumstances where the potential benefits demonstrably outweigh the risks – the current implementation of these policies is deeply flawed. Safe and viable choice research approaches almost always exist to achieve the same public health goals without the inherent dangers of DGOF studies. We should prioritize and fund these safer alternatives.
Unfortunately, as Sarah Stanley rightly points out, the current submission of the Executive Order is misdirected, targeting research that doesn’t even meet the defined criteria for DGOF. this approach doesn’t enhance our safety; it stifles crucial scientific progress. Experiments like Professor Stanley’s, which pose no realistic risk of widespread infection even in the event of a laboratory accident, are being cancelled. This hinders essential basic science vital for developing new cures and preventative measures for diseases like tuberculosis.
Despite potentially differing on the stringency of restrictions for some experiments, I firmly believe that arbitrarily hindering safe and productive scientific inquiry ultimately increases the risks we face from infectious diseases. Focusing restrictions on the narrow subset of research that genuinely creates outbreak or pandemic risk,while allowing the vast majority of microbiology research to proceed unhindered,is the most effective path forward.
– Marc Lipsitch, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Response to: ”The U.S. experiment with profit-driven health care has failed,” by Steffie Woolhandler, David U. Himmelstein, Adam W. Gaffney, and Danny McCormick
[https://www.statnews.com/2025/10/21/health-care-system-profit-failed/](https://www.statnews.com/2025/1
Keep reading