I was loving this guy until the snake like way he handles "gain of function" and its definition. Grow a pair of balls dude. So the snake like way is to tie the term "gain of function" to an experiment that could potentially cause a pandemic. So if you don't "reasonably" expect your experiment to result in a non pandemic level pathogen to "gain the function" of a pandemic level pathogen then you can argue you're not conducting "gain of function" WHAT UTTER BULLSHIT. You can tell by his very specific language he is aware of this snake like slithering around a very simple topic. The whole reason that DARPA denied the grant is that it realized that the addition of a "furin cleavage site" to SARS family of viruses is already considered potential pandemic level research because novel SARS having the ability to infect humans has a "reasonable" expectation of creating a pandemic. <br><br>He most likely can be tied to this type of research and is protecting himself. Tying the term gain of function to a "hypothetical" like could lead to a potential pandemic leaves the scientists to skirt the system. Hey we didn't reasonably expect this experiment to result in a pandemic so its not gain of function so you should fund this research. <br><br>The older definition (since he sites the 2017 version) I believe where a pathogen novel to humans gains the ability to infect humans was to broad and was interfering with funding. Something like we want to do this important research on this virus that if it were to infect a human would not lead to a pandemic so you should let us do it, so then they change the definition to be tied to pandemic to open up the money. <br><br>Be honest, it is obvious to anyone with 7 functioning brain cells what gain of function is you coward.