Metaculus Help: Spread the word
If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
Pandemic series: federal funding of "gain of function research of concern" in 2016-18?
In an effort to better understand the pathways by which H5N1 (and other flue), MERS, SARS, etc., may become more dangerous, several research groups have begun to deliberately engineer viruses to increase their virulence, transmissibility, or other qualities.
This "gain of function" (GoF) research may help prepare use for naturally-occuring variants of these diseases and enhance our ability to generate better vaccines, etc. However, there are obvious potential dangers as well: an accidental release, or deliberate theft of such organisms could create a potential pandemic; even the information published about such efforts could increase the probability of bioterror or bioerror events.
In October 2014, the White House issued a funding pause on such experiments involving influenza and coronaviruses, partly in response to a statement by the Cambridge Working Group that called for a curtailment of experiments to create potential pandemic pathogens in the laboratory, pending a risk and benefit assessment. The White House charged the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity (NSABB) with commissioning such a report.
After the completion of this report and several high-level meetings, the NSABB composed a set of recommendations; see the draft report here.
These recommendations do not call for a moratorium on the funding of any particular types of research, but for various levels of additional oversight in the funding of "gain of function research of concern," (GoFRoC) which they define as a subset of GoF research that is
- highly transmissible and likely capable of wide and uncontrollable spread in human populations; and
- highly virulent and likely to cause significant morbidity and/or mortality in humans.
The report calls for "additional, multidisciplinary review, prior to determining whether they are acceptable for funding. If funded, such projects should be subject to ongoing oversight at the Federal and institutional levels" and calls for "An external advisory body that is designed for transparency and public engagement should be utilized as part of the U.S. government’s ongoing evaluation of oversight policies for GOF research of concern."
Many elements of this whole issue (and see here for a good summary) could form the basis of questions. Here we focus on the bottom line:
By the end of 2018 will US federal funding go to 2 or more research projects performing GOF research of concern?
Resolution is positive if two of more distinct federal grants have been fully approved that fund GoFRoC research, i.e. have been identified in review as this type of research, received (we can hope) additional levels of scrutiny, and received approval. This may be identified by media report, by presence in an accessible research grant database, or other credible source.
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.
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.