A big step forward in creating future pandemics :
https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...44101-44195757
So you can easily simulate the effect of mutations and recombinations in the
computer without all that GOF-research and passaging.
Apparently scientists are trying to hide this danger, but highlight the chances.
It's these chances which are good for their research, their jobs, their careers,
their funding.
While the dangers are bad for them. Preventing possible future dangers
is unpopular, non-rewarding.
We've seen this in the discussion about
Taubenberger's Spainflu publishing
GOF-research
I've learned in those discussions, that scientists are biased, don't argue reasonably
about the dangers. Things are being complicated and arguments found about
some sub-problems,, but the overall logics is missing.
Now, in the articles about deepminds yesterday's announcement, I didn't find any
that even mentions the concern about using it for creating pandemics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d415...44101-44195757
So you can easily simulate the effect of mutations and recombinations in the
computer without all that GOF-research and passaging.
Apparently scientists are trying to hide this danger, but highlight the chances.
It's these chances which are good for their research, their jobs, their careers,
their funding.
While the dangers are bad for them. Preventing possible future dangers
is unpopular, non-rewarding.
We've seen this in the discussion about
Taubenberger's Spainflu publishing
GOF-research
I've learned in those discussions, that scientists are biased, don't argue reasonably
about the dangers. Things are being complicated and arguments found about
some sub-problems,, but the overall logics is missing.
Now, in the articles about deepminds yesterday's announcement, I didn't find any
that even mentions the concern about using it for creating pandemics.
Comment