"Gain-of-Function Research of Concern" has "No Civilian Practical Applications" but "Immense Bioweapons Practical Applications"

Richard Ebright remarks in Aug. 2022 Senate hearing are rare -- such issues were avoided in the recent high-profile Covid origins hearings. Also, the critical phrase is missing from C-SPAN transcript.

A Senate hearing in August 2022, unlike the recent House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic hearings on March 8, had at least one substantial discussion of "bioweapons". (Thanks to decensored.news for video clip.)

While the recent hearings featured beltway insiders as well as a longtime New York Times reporter, the August 2022 hearings featured scientists including Richard Ebright, a noted molecular biologist at Rutgers University and a leading lab safety authority.

In response to a series of questions from Sen. Josh Hawley, Ebright stated at that hearing: "Gain-of-function research of concern" has "no civilian practical applications" but "immense bioweapons practical applications".

Ebright is not scheduled to testify before the new Congress.

A full transcript of the exchange is below.

Hawley recently made headlines when he claimed that recent legislation he sponsored would “declassify all of the information the federal government has on Covid origins.” In fact, as previously reported, the legislation, which passed both Houses unanimously before Biden signed instructs Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence, to declassify “all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019.” That is, Hawley’s legislation targets the WIV and provides no assurance that other information indicting other institutions will be declassified, much less released to the public.

Transcript of the Hawley-Ebright Exchange on Gain-of-Function Research of Concern and Bioweapons (bold added for emphasis):

Hawley: Doctor Ebright, let me ask you about the merits of gain-of-function research because I was struck by something you said in your written testimony. You said, ‘gain-of-function research has no civilian practical applications.’ From a research perspective, then what, why do it? I mean, what’s the, what’s the value, the real value of gain-of-function research?

Ebright: Not a matter of value but incentives, particularly incentives within the academic research ecosystem. Gain-of-function research of concern is fast and easy, much faster and much easier than vaccine or drug development. And gain-of-function research is publishable, and gain-of-function research is fundable. With those four incentives in place: fast, easy, fundable, and publishable, the research will be performed. Eliminate any one of those incentives and it will not be.

[Notice that Ebright has offered a solution to the problem here: Stop funding Gain-of-function research of concern and it will be stopped. But instead, Hawley goes to China. Also notice, Ebright’s argument is at odds with the position popularized by Jon Stewart that somehow science is intrinsically the problem.]

Hawley: So thinking about China for a second, what is China's interest in gain-of-function research?

Ebright: They have witnessed the United States leading the way with gain-of-function research. Most gain-of-function research of concern performed today has been performed either in the U.S. with U.S. funding, or overseas with U.S. funding. China has wished to be part of that and has participated in gain-of-function research of concern in China with U.S. funding and has also supported gain-of-function research of concern in China entirely through Chinese programs.

Hawley: So let me ask you this. Gain-of-function research and bioweapons, what is the connection there? I mean, what role does gain-of-function research play?

Ebright: As I mentioned, there are no civilian practical applications. There are immense bioweapons practical applications. As you've heard from Dr. Esvelt, the potential pandemic pathogens that can emerge from such studies are potential weapons of mass destruction: inexpensive, accessible, easily distributed weapons of mass destruction.

For background, see: “Crucial Points on Pandemic Origins Debate.”

Problems with C-SPAN’s Coverage: Key Phrase Missing and Violation of “Founding Principles”

I should note the key phrase is missing from the C-SPAN transcript. Searches on the C-SPAN for “bioweapons” or “bio-weapons” gives no results:

Moreover, when a search is performed on “practical applications” and the “Show Full Text” button is clicked, the phrase "there are no civilian practical applications. There are immense bioweapons practical applications" is replaced by “there are no civilian practical applications. There are immense’s applications.” (The full exchange between Ebright and Hawley begins at 59:30 and the omitted reference to bioweapons is shortly after 1:01:15. The video on C-SPAN’s website of the hearing itself does not appear to have been altered.)

Detailed image:

In contrast to searching on “bioweapons”, searching on “weapons” brings results, but here too, the reference to bioweapons is omitted:

Some references to “bioweapon’s” are in the transcript. Both are references to Hawley, one questioning Dr. Steven Quay, another witness, and the other when questioning Prof. Ebright:

But the key quote from Ebright: “There are immense bioweapons practical applications,” is omitted throughout.

The quote from Ebright has been a regularly featured as a clip on StraightTalkMD.com in a series of programs on pandemic origins. (Disclosure: I’ve been interviewed as part of the series.)

While it may be theoretically possible that these issues can be explained by an innocent technical glitch in the transcription, there were other problems with how the video was presented.

The August 2022 hearing was chaired by Sen. Rand Paul. The C-SPAN video of the hearing is prefixed with a soundbite from a prior hearing of Tony Fauci pointing his finger at Paul: “If anyone is lying here, senator, it is you!”

This would seem to violate network policies, as C-SPAN claims it is “a public service” and that: “today we remain true to our founding principles, providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of the workings of the U.S. Congress, both the House and Senate, all without editing, commentary or analysis.” Indeed, clearly, prefixing a hearing with an accusation against the truthfulness of the chairperson of the hearing — a highly edited soundbite — is a clear violation of C-SPAN’s “founding principles”.

Further, the hearing begins with a voiceover describing “gain of function” in the most positive possible light: "genetic modification of viruses and pathogens that increases strength and transmissibility.”