aggregating definitive insights delivering intelligent understanding generating quantitative understanding assembling quantitative futures composing contingent insights mapping the future assembling accurate predictions calculating probable understanding modeling quantitative insights generating definitive insights crowdsourcing quantitative forecasts delivering quantitative insights delivering quantitative futures delivering quantitative futures

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Will the US restore funding for research that creates more dangerous versions of Influenza, MERS and SARS?

The decreasing cost and difficulty of genetic engineering have opened up a number of new research fields. One that is highly controversial is "gain of function" (GoF) pathogen research, in which researchers deliberately engineer existing pathogens to increase their virulence, transmissibility, or other qualities.

The goal of such research is to understand the natural pathways by which existing wild pathogens may become more dangerous, so as to enhance our ability to respond, to create better vaccines, etc.

However, there are obvious potential dangers as well, as 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.

That report has recently been posted online by the NSABB and its chosen contractor, Gryphon Scientific.

On January 7-8 the NSABB will meet to consider the analysis and its response to the assessment, which will form a policy recommendation. Further discussion will occur at the National Academy of Sciences on March 10-11.

After these discussions, will the funding restriction of GoF research on Influenza and coronaviruses be lifted (or replaced by something considerably less restrictive) by November 1, 2016?

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

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.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

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.