Gain-of-function (GoF) research, which involves modifying pathogens to enhance their functions like transmissibility or virulence, is a contentious field. While proponents argue it has led to significant scientific and public health benefits, critics highlight its potential biosafety risks. Currently, there's no comprehensive, quantitative assessment of GoF research's benefits, making it hard to weigh its value against risks. This gap undermines evidence-based policymaking and public discourse.

Quantifying the Benefits of GoF Research

One way to address this gap could be a systematic evaluation of past GoF research benefits. This could involve selecting high-impact studies (e.g., the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus), categorizing their benefits (scientific knowledge, public health impact, technological advancements), and assigning measurable metrics to each. For example, scientific impact might be quantified through citation counts, while public health benefits could be measured in lives saved or vaccines developed. The goal would be to produce a transparent, data-driven report comparing these benefits against known risks.

Stakeholders and Execution

Such an analysis could serve policymakers, scientists, and the public by providing clearer evidence for decision-making. To execute this, a phased approach might work:

• Start with a literature review to identify GoF studies with documented benefits.
• Conduct deep-dive analyses of 3–5 high-impact cases to test quantification methods.
• Develop a standardized framework for benefit assessment.

A minimal viable product could focus on a single well-documented case, like the 1918 flu study, to demonstrate the feasibility of the approach.

Challenges and Comparisons

Key challenges include defining metrics for "benefit" and ensuring objectivity. One way to address bias could be relying on independent data sources and partnering with neutral organizations like the National Academies. Compared to existing work—such as qualitative reviews by Gryphon Scientific or policy-focused reports by NASEM—this project would stand out by providing the first quantitative benefit analysis, filling a critical gap in the GoF debate.

By offering concrete data, this approach could help move the discussion beyond anecdotes and toward evidence-based decisions about GoF research's future.