Allegedly, these viruses are "plague" level events; and they are kept and researched to find a cure, so if they were released by an enemy; we would have a cure we would respond with.
However, if the enemy is weaponizing a virus; don't we need to weaponize a different virus in response? Yes, this is madness. Bioweapons are not defensive in nature, they are offensive (and banned by the Bioweapons Convention).
Gain of function has already been abused - which imho should involve the death penalty as a Crime against Humanity.
One reason this is researched, is some virus's (no matter where inserted) will seek a specific organ. Tuberculosis for example, will seek the lungs. The fantasy is to take the tuberculosis virus, remove that which causes harm, and replace it with a specific payload (such as a gene to cure asthma), so one huff off a mask and a week later you no longer have asthma, etc. But is the risk worth the reward?
Allegedly, these viruses are "plague" level events; and they are kept and researched to find a cure, so if they were released by an enemy; we would have a cure we would respond with.
However, if the enemy is weaponizing a virus; don't we need to weaponize a different virus in response? Yes, this is madness. Bioweapons are not defensive in nature, they are offensive (and banned by the Bioweapons Convention).
Gain of function has already been abused - which imho should involve the death penalty as a Crime against Humanity.
One reason this is researched, is some virus's (no matter where inserted) will seek a specific organ. Tuberculosis for example, will seek the lungs. The fantasy is to take the tuberculosis virus, remove that which causes harm, and replace it with a specific payload (such as a gene to cure asthma), so one huff off a mask and a week later you no longer have asthma, etc. But is the risk worth the reward?