Metaculus Help: Spread the word
If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
Pathogen research rejected for publication as an information hazard by 2021?
Published research on pathogens is overwhelmingly aimed at preventing the creation and spreading of disease. (Bioweapons programs, if they exist despite international treaty, are secret and/or classified.)
Nonetheless, some research and research publication have encountered criticism for potentially increasing the risk of accidental pandemic, or deliberate bioweapon attack. In a prominent example, in 2012 a Dutch research group published a description of a lab-modified strain of H5N1 influenza virus capable of airborne transmission between ferrets. This came after intense controversy including a recommendation-then-reversal by the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) that the research not be published. See here for summary and an update on the story.
Gain-of-function research of the type described in these publications has been under a funding moratorium in the US since 2014; however as detailed in a separate question, the research may be "allowed" in some cases in the US, and can continue elsewhere or using alternative funding.
This raises questions about the publication of such information, and the responsibility of journals (if any) in deciding whether it should be published. Following up to a previous question from 2016, which resolved negatively, we again ask:
By Jan 1, 2021 will an event occur in which a credible media source reports that a major medical journal has declined to publish an otherwise-publishable scientific paper on human pathogens due to concerns that it constitutes an information hazard?
We will consider any journal in this top 100 list to be a major medical journal. The question resolves as positive even if the paper is published after resubmission to a second (or third...) journal, as long as it is rejected for information-hazard rather than research quality reasons. The rejection may be at the journal's discretion or by request (or requirement) from an external party.
Metaculus help: Predicting
Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.
The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.
The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.
This question is not yet open for predictions.
Metaculus help: Community Stats
Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.
When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.