Overview

Title

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States Government should immediately place a moratorium on all federally funded gain-of-function research given the increased safety concerns.

ELI5 AI

The Senate wants to stop a kind of research where scientists make germs stronger because it might be too risky, and they want to be extra careful to keep everyone safe.

Summary AI

S. RES. 718 is a resolution expressing the Senate's opinion that the U.S. government should immediately stop all federally funded gain-of-function research due to increased safety concerns. This type of research involves enhancing the abilities of infectious agents and could potentially lead to the creation of more dangerous viruses. The resolution highlights past issues with oversight and compliance related to this research, particularly involving organizations like EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and suggests that strict measures are necessary to prevent potential future risks. The resolution calls for the consideration of a bill that would define this research and prohibit federal funding for institutions conducting such studies.

Published

2024-06-04
Congress: 118
Session: 2
Chamber: SENATE
Status: Introduced in Senate
Date: 2024-06-04
Package ID: BILLS-118sres718is

Keywords AI

gain-of-function research moratorium federally funded research public health virus enhancement biological safety research funding wuhan institute of virology ecohealth alliance nih oversight

Sources

Bill Statistics

Size

Sections:
1
Words:
295
Pages:
8
Sentences:
5

Language

Nouns: 94
Verbs: 27
Adjectives: 15
Adverbs: 6
Numbers: 8
Entities: 23

Complexity

Average Token Length:
4.51
Average Sentence Length:
59.00
Token Entropy:
4.59
Readability (ARI):
32.59

AnalysisAI

General Summary of the Bill

The proposed Senate Resolution 718 calls for the United States government to place an immediate halt on all federally funded gain-of-function research. This type of research involves altering viruses to become more infectious or dangerous for study purposes, which raises safety concerns. The bill references historical acts and oversight failures, predominantly emphasizing incidents surrounding the EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It aims to prevent future funding for institutions engaging in such potentially risky research without appropriate measures in place.

Summary of Significant Issues

Ambiguity in Definition:
One of the most notable issues with the bill is its broad definition of "gain-of-function research." This vagueness could result in subjective interpretations, causing confusion over what precisely constitutes the enhancement of a virus's pathogenicity or transmissibility.

Restrictive Funding Provisions:
The bill seeks to prohibit federal grants for the defined research. This could become restrictive as it lacks specific parameters that distinguish between harmful and beneficial research projects. Consequently, the policy could unintentionally stymie scientific endeavors that contribute positively to public health and safety.

Lack of Evaluation Mechanism:
There is no outlined method in the bill for assessing or managing research projects already underway, which could see many beneficial studies disrupted or prematurely terminated. This omission might hinder advancements that hold significance for public health, including potential breakthroughs in understanding and managing pandemics.

Limited Scope with Virus Focus:
Another limitation is the bill's narrow focus on only a few specific viruses (influenza, MERS, SARS), potentially overlooking other pathologically significant viruses that could also benefit from research under this branch. This restriction might leave room for gaps in preparedness against future diverse viral threats.

Oversight and Accountability Concerns:
The document highlights past failures in oversight and transparency by NIH and NIAID while managing grants. These deficiencies underline the need for significant improvements in grant oversight and accountability to prevent similar lapses in the future.

Impact on the Public Broadly

The proposed moratorium on gain-of-function research could have a mixed impact on the public. On one hand, halting potentially dangerous research could enhance public safety and reduce the risk of accidental virus releases, which is especially pertinent post-COVID-19. On the other hand, it might impede scientific research that is crucial for understanding and responding to infectious diseases, potentially leaving the public unprepared for novel viral threats.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Research Institutions and Scientists:
For academic and research institutions specializing in virology or infectious diseases, the bill could pose significant challenges. Funding restrictions might lead to a reduction in research activities, impacting scientific innovation and understanding of viral mechanisms crucial for public health.

Government and Regulatory Bodies:
Government agencies, like NIH and NIAID, will need to enhance oversight and improve their procedures for funding and monitoring research projects. This bill puts a spotlight on the necessity for more stringent accountability and transparency in handling taxpayer funds designated for research.

Public Health Sector:
While the bill aims to protect the public from potential risks of gain-of-function research, diminishing this type of research might also slow the development of vaccines and therapies for pandemic threats, affecting public health preparedness and response capabilities.

In conclusion, while the intentions behind Senate Resolution 718 appear prudent—aiming to halt potentially risky research—the broad approach might inadvertently hinder valuable scientific progress. The resolution's success in balancing safety with the need for ongoing research is strongly tied to its execution, potential modifications to the definitions, and the establishment of a rigorous oversight and evaluation system.

Issues

  • The bill's definition of 'gain-of-function research' is broad (Section 1), leading to ambiguity over what constitutes 'enhanced pathogenicity or transmissibility', potentially leading to subjective interpretations and affecting research activities.

  • The provision prohibiting federal research grants under point 2 (Section 1) is potentially too restrictive without specific parameters, which may hinder beneficial research outcomes and academic pursuits.

  • There is no outlined mechanism or criteria for evaluating or allowing continuation of research already in progress under new restrictions (Section 1). This lack of clarity could disrupt ongoing research projects that could be significant for public health.

  • The bill's focus on specific viruses (influenza, MERS, SARS) (Section 1) may limit its scope, potentially ignoring other pathogens that could also pose significant risks, which could result in inadequate future pandemic preparedness.

  • Concerns about transparency and oversight failures by NIH and NIAID, as described in the text, point to the need for increased accountability in grant management, which could lead to changes in how research is funded and overseen (Text sections discussing NIH and NIAID).

Sections

Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.

(1) Read Opens in new tab

Summary AI

The section expresses the Senate's belief that Congress should urgently discuss the Viral Gain-of-Function Research Moratorium Act. This proposed law aims to define gain-of-function research as studies that could make certain viruses more dangerous and bans federal funding for such research at universities and other organizations.