zlacker

>>BellLa+(OP)
Check out this prescient article from 2017, when the ban was lifted:

Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic...

Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, called review panels “a small step forward.”

Recent disease-enhancing experiments, he said, “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics, and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic.”

Therefore, he said, he hoped the panels would turn down such work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih...

>>missin+H81
Prescient how? This article is about a rejected proposal. Not only did the research not happen, we have no reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.

>>tootie+6b1
A rejected proposal does not mean research does not happen. It means they were unable to get funding from DARPA. It does not necessarily mean they were unable to get funding from "somebody".

And yes we do have reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.

>>rhacke+cc1
So, who did they get funding from, if not one of the only bodies in the world capable of funding this kind of work?

Oh, that’s right, they didn’t. You can tell that by looking at what they did work on next. Did you look?

Like it says in the article.

>>lolwut+xc1
We already know the NIH partially funded field survey work that appears to be very similar to this. It's pretty obvious to see that they continued applying elsewhere and may have been successful in getting the funding the requested. It just might be from several grants.