I'm thinking that the problem is is that it is much harder to develop drugs that only kill cancers very efficiently and don't harm the rest of the body than to tweak viruses that just have to keep the person alive long enough to spread the virus.
I 100% agree your point is valid. The counterargument is "Yes, people can do bad things with protein data, just as they can do bad things with a telephone, like use it to discuss a bank robbery."
The crazy part is a bioweapons program is really cheap compared to a nuclear weapons program, and now with these new tools it's even cheaper. Before, it was vastly more expensive to do the cycle of creating a new viral protein and testing a bioweapon on human cell culture. Now that process is speeded up millions of times with this technology because that can all take place inside a computer.
This is similar to the change with drone weaponry. Before, you had to have large cruise missiles to get pinpoint strikes. Now small countries like Azerbaijan can buy a whole fleet of drone weapons and get the benefits of having a modern air force with pinpoint strikes and even stealth for vastly less money.
Because it -might- make things slightly easier for a state actor with nigh-unlimited resources to enact a doomsday scenario, which they might or might not be pursuing, medical researchers should not publish otherwise helpful research?
I think it's great that the Wuhan institute published all their gain of function research. They even said who paid for it. It's a clear trail back to them, but apparently taking any action to acknowledge that this is a bad thing and something fishy might be going on is a completely politicized issue now that apparently gets as many downvotes as arguing about hot button political topics now.
What I'm saying is there should at least be an open and frank discussion of what the whole world is getting itself into right now with all this.
It's a bit of a Gish gallop to ignore my point and say something orthogonal that only is weakly related to your original assertion.
Gain of function research is simultaneously concerning (aside from bioweapons use, there is also the possibility of deliberate release) and important (to understand how pathogenesis happens and to better combat future pandemics and bioweapons). It, however, has approximately nothing to do with your assertions that A) China is preparing race-targeted pathogens, or B) that publishing a protein folding database does anything significant to assist China with A.
> ... at least be an open and frank discussion of ...
OK, then you need to be open and frank, rather than engaging in these dishonest argument tactics.
