Banned in the US, but presumably outsourced to wherever else the research funding flowed to?

It was banned but the ban was lifted a few years ago by Trump.

Both links you provided appear to be for the same article, just from two different sources. There is nothing in the article about Fauci "urging" anyone to lift the ban on gain of function research. He did defend the research being done in China and the ban was lifted by NIH in December 2017, though.

Also, calling people who downvoted you "idiots" is not the road towards meaningful discussion.

This is really interesting. I wish they would have gone the other way after. Taken the bacteria from the middle and observed how long it took to lose that anti-bacterial resistance.

I am convinced that bacterial resistance is a trait, but am unconvinced of it's permanence if the utility of maintaining it is removed from the environment.

Yes was banned due to academic outcry, but then lifted by Trump.

“Gain of Function” is often a dog whistle for bioweapons research.

Why else would you actively develop bacteria and virus that spreads more?

So, the reason given is that you have a virus that exists naturally. If we can artificially find a variant that is more lethal and or contagious (those are often the vectors that are selected for) you can then calculate the delta between the DNA of the original and the variation and make some guesses as to the likelihood that this variation will emerge naturally via mutation and then perhaps develop some sort of preventive countermeasures.

Here is a good lecture by a harvard professor on risks of gain of function research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5fe7KEkwQM

-- Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Experiments in Potentially Pandemic Pathogens

--- The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk's January 2015 Seminar, with Professor Marc Lipsitch (Harvard) and Professor Derek Smith (Cambridge).

A growing trend in experimental virology has been the modification of influenza viruses that are antigenically novel to, and virulent in humans, such that these variant viruses are readily transmissible in mammals, including ferrets which are thought to be the best animal model for influenza infection. Novel, contagious, virulent viruses are potential pandemic pathogens in that their accidental or malevolent release into the human population could cause a pandemic.

Professor Marc Lipsitch (Harvard) describes the purported benefits of such studies, arguing that these are overstated; estimates the magnitude of the risk they create, argues for the superiority of alternative scientific approaches on both safety and scientific grounds, and proposes an ethical framework in which such experiments should be evaluated. The talk also explore recent developments following the pause in funding for this research announced by the United States Government in October, and steps towards the risk-benefit analysis called for by the announcement.

Professor Lipsitch is a professor of epidemiology and the Director of the Centre for Communicable Disease Dynamics at Harvard University. He is one of the founders of the Cambridge Working group, which calls for a “quantitative, objective and credible assessment of the risks, potential benefits, and opportunities for risk mitigation” of gain of function experiments in potentially pandemic pathogen strains.

A response is given by Professor Derek Smith, Professor of Infectious Disease Informatics at Cambridge University. --