Video has emerged of the 2012 testimony of Dr. Fauci arguing that the benefits of conducting gain-of-function research outweighed the risk that it could spark a pandemic:

DR. FAUCI: “Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.”

Dr. Fauci also reportedly failed to warn the Trump administration when the ban on gain-of-function research ended in 2017.

The coronavirus has now killed over 3.5 million people worldwide.

Trending: Left Attacks Rep Massie For Showing Video Of Possible FBI Plant Inciting “Insurrection” Before and After Jan 6th...Rep Massie Brilliantly Responds

More of Dr. Fauci’s Opening Statement To Congress 2012 On The Risk Of Dual Research:

However, the issue that has been intensely debated is whether knowledge obtained from these experiments could inadvertently adversely affect public health, even in nations multiple time zones away. Putting aside the specter of bioterrorism for the moment, consider this hypothetical scenario: an important gain-of-function experiment involving a virus with serious pandemic potential is performed in a well-regulated, world-class laboratory by experienced investigators, but the information from the experiment is then used by another scientist who does not have the same training and facilities and is not subject to the same regulations. In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario—however remote—should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision?

Save up to 66% on MyPillow products. Use promo code FedUp, and save up to 66%.

Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky. However, we must respect that there are genuine and legitimate concerns about this type of research, both domestically and globally. We cannot expect those who have these concerns to take us, the scientific community, at our word that the benefits of this work outweigh the risks, nor can we ignore their calls for greater transparency, their concerns about conflicts of interest, and their efforts to engage in a dialog about whether these experiments should have been performed in the first place. Those of us in the scientific community who believe in the merits of this work have the responsibility to address these concerns thoughtfully and respectfully.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.