Gain-of-function research: Does the relationship between biological research, security, and society require rethinking?

• Author:
• Author name

  Quantumrun Foresight
• April 11, 2022

Insight summary

Gain-of-Function (GOF) research, a fascinating exploration into the mutations that change a gene's function, has become a vital tool in understanding diseases and developing preventive measures, but it also presents significant safety and security concerns. The broad applications of GOF, from transforming plastic waste into synthetic fuel to the potential creation of highly targeted diseases as bioweapons, reveal both promising opportunities and alarming risks. However, the long-term implications of this research demand careful consideration and responsible management by governments and industries.

Gain-of-function context

GOF looks into mutations that change a gene or protein's function or expression pattern. A related approach, called loss-of-function, entails suppressing a gene and observing what happens to organisms without it. Any organism can develop new abilities or properties or gain a function through natural selection or scientific experiments. However, while useful in the development of next-generation vaccines and medications, GOF scientific experiments can also present significant safety and security concerns.

For context, scientists modify organisms using several techniques based on the organism's abilities and the desired results. Many of these approaches comprise altering an organism's genetic code directly, while others may involve organisms being placed in conditions that promote functions linked to genetic changes. 

GOF research initially attracted widespread public attention in June 2012, when two research groups disclosed that they had modified an avian influenza virus using genetic engineering and guided evolution so that it could be transmitted to and between ferrets. Some sections of the public were afraid that publicizing the findings would be equivalent to providing a blueprint for producing a catastrophic pandemic. In the years since, research funders, politicians, and scientists have debated whether such work required stricter oversight to prevent the accidental or deliberate release of a lab-created plague. 

US funding agencies, which support research conducted in other countries, eventually imposed a moratorium in 2014 on GOF research involving highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIV) while developing new protocols to examine the risks and benefits. The moratorium was lifted in December 2017. GOF research has returned to the spotlight, owing to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic and its contested origins. Several scientists and politicians contend that the pandemic may have originated from a lab, with the pandemic raising important issues regarding GOF research. 

Disruptive impact

The study of GOF in infectious agents has profound implications for understanding diseases and developing preventive measures. By delving into the underlying nature of host-pathogen interactions, scientists can uncover how viruses evolve and infect hosts. This knowledge aids in the creation of strategies to prevent or treat diseases in humans and animals. Furthermore, GOF research can evaluate the pandemic potential of emerging infectious organisms, guiding public health and preparation efforts, including the creation of effective medical responses. However, it's essential to recognize that this research may come with specific biosafety and biosecurity risks, requiring unique risk assessment and mitigation strategies.

In the context of community health, GOF research serves as a vital tool for anticipating changes in known viruses. By highlighting likely mutations, it enables improved surveillance, allowing communities to recognize and respond to these changes promptly. Preparing vaccines ahead of an outbreak becomes a possibility, potentially saving lives and resources. Yet, the potential risks of GOF research cannot be ignored. It may lead to the creation of organisms that are more infectious or virulent than their parent organism, or even organisms that current detection methods and treatments cannot handle.

Governments may need to invest in infrastructure and education to ensure that GOF research is conducted safely and ethically. Companies involved in healthcare and pharmaceuticals can leverage this research to develop new products and services but may need to navigate regulatory and ethical landscapes carefully. Individuals, particularly those in affected communities, stand to benefit from improved disease prevention and treatment but must also be aware of the potential risks and societal debates surrounding this powerful scientific approach. 

Implications of gain-of-function

Wider implications of GOF may include:

• Scientists in the broad bioscience field being able to conduct advanced tests for numerous scientific theories, leading to a deeper understanding of life processes and the potential for new discoveries in medicine, agriculture, and other vital sectors.


• The development of new technologies and medical treatments for a range of healthcare applications, leading to improved patient outcomes, more personalized care, and potential cost savings in healthcare systems.


• Genetically engineering organisms for the benefit of the environment, such as modifying E. coli to transform plastic waste into a synthetic fuel or another commodity, leading to new methods of waste management and potential energy solutions.


• Rogue regimes and organizations funding the development of highly targeted and drug-resistant diseases for use as bioweapons, leading to increased global security risks and the need for international cooperation in biosafety.


• The increased ability to modify genetic material, leading to ethical debates and potential legislation around human genetic engineering, designer babies, and the potential for unintended ecological consequences.


• The growth of personalized medicine through genetic analysis and tailored treatments, leading to more effective therapies but also raising concerns about privacy, discrimination, and accessibility for all socioeconomic groups.


• The potential for bioscience to contribute to sustainable agriculture through the development of drought-resistant crops and environmentally friendly pesticides, leading to increased food security and reduced environmental impact.


• The risk of unequal access to advanced bioscience technologies and treatments across different regions and socioeconomic groups, leading to widening health disparities and potential social unrest.


• The integration of bioscience with information technology, leading to the creation of new industries and job opportunities but also requiring significant workforce retraining and adaptation to new labor market demands.

Questions to consider

• Do you think that the risks of GOF research outweigh the benefits?


• Do you believe private companies should retain their ability to conduct GOF research, or should GOF research be restricted to national government laboratories, or be banned outright?