There was a NIH moratorium, but it was lifted in 2017.

I don't agree about the point of virology being just about studying gain of function. There are tons of things you can study in virology without needing to create novel viruses.

Fair enough, I know almost nothing about it.

Yes, but are those things going to get you grants, tenure, and the recognition that doing something more... "cutting edge" (blech) like GoF research?

Even better: modern gene therapy is done with lentiviruses which were derived from HIV. This is commonly done; thousands of research labs around the world do this as a regular practice. We typically call them lentiviruses, rather than HIV-derived, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentiviral_vector_in_gene_ther...

Lentiviral vectors are engineered to make them less harmful (and in fact beneficial) to humans. They're also tested to ensure they're replication-incompetent, so that even if they did turn out to be harmful they couldn't spread from patient to patient.

https://www.criver.com/eureka/why-are-lentivirus-vector-safe...

The gain of function research of concern takes viruses already capable of sickening and killing humans (or their close relatives), and deliberately makes them deadlier and easier to spread among humans. This is a tiny fraction of virology, and has yet to deliver any practical benefit.

There's a legitimate concern that an overbroad ban on gain-of-function research could restrict safe and beneficial activities. The WIV's work was pretty far at the dangerous extreme, though--Ralph Baric's work was already controversial, and the WIV was working with a greater diversity of viruses, at lower BSL.

While many people define gain-of-function in virology as "enhancing existing attributes which would promote virulence", molecular biologists in general are more open to the idea that other functions, such as gene therapy, would also qualify as gain-of-function.

Either way my point was that we actively use a known highly transmissible virus, with some parts removed, under the general assumption that it's safe, and it's been demonstrated to not cause large issues (compared to other problems in gene therapy). I think people should be aware of that and in some sense I am surprised there isn't more attention placed on this practice.

There's a recording from 2014 where David Relman and Ralph Baric talk about that distinction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw-nR6-4kQQ&t=2466s

I said "gain of function research of concern", which is vague but seems to have become the standard phrase to convey that narrower sense. There's definitely some grey, but the WIV's work was pretty deep in the black.

I'm reading more about lentiviral vectors now, and not totally comforted to see all the ways the earlier generations could regain replication competence. That still seems much less frightening to me than GOFROC, which is deliberately just one containment failure away from a novel pandemic.