@Thorite_Gem

10 months ago

This video felt incredibly weird. Not only the structure, lack of faces, the alarmist tone, the lifelessness of the animation... What feels the weirdest to me is the sub-par sources, and the fact that the main source for this video was paid by the same organization that paid for this video. I will explain. (I apologize for how long this is.) I looked through the sources that they listed, and out of the 52 times they source something, 9 times Kurzgesagt sourced the same book. And of those 52 sources, only, to my eye, 13 were about the manipulation and study of bacterial/viral genes in any capacity. (There were 6 on nuclear weapons, for comparison). And about the claim of easy access to both materials and knowledge that the argument hinges on? There is one source about concerns related to easy access to genetic information, and one about easy access to DNA editing equipment. The source about easy access to genetic information (other than the book this video is based on) brings up several good examples of the risk involved with being incredibly open with knowledge about viruses and bacteria. It brings up case studies where scientists edited viruses, and published their results, in a way that was a cause for concern. Such as editing a mousepox virus so that it could bypass an existing vaccine, and publishing what gene editing was done to make that possible. The source does show an opposing opinion, which says that those with access to that information can then plan to counteract such a gene, if a virus like it were to be released on human populations. And this source, while intriguing, focuses wholly on the formal, laboratory-based research. Which this video decisively does not address, instead talking about, essentially, 'backyard biologists'. Which the second source talks about. This source isn't a peer-reviewed paper, or published in a scientific journal, unlike the first one. This source talks about DIY CRISPR kits - at home DNA editors. But the source makes no mention of infectious diseases, saying that these kits can ".... make bacteria and yeast change colour, produce a fragrance or live in inhospitable places, but their lives are short." The source says that there is very little that can be actually done to bacteria beyond this. Which does not back up the claim that pretty much anyone could have access to powerful gene-editing capabilities. As for the book - the primary source of this video. I am not inclined to read it in its entirety, but I will provide relevant quotes they listed, and break them down. For materials access: "DNA constructs of length sufficient to generate infectious 1918 influenza virus can now be obtained for US$1,500; coronaviruses cost approximately US$2,000, but typically must be enzymatically stitched together by hand prior to virus generation, limiting (for now) the number of capable individuals to those also skilled at modern biotechnology. The laboratory equipment and reagents required for these tasks can typically be obtained for less than US$50,000.” So... It doesn't mention who has access to such materials (making it seem like anyone could order it off the internet), nor does it say how easy it is to edit such diseases to make them bio-weapons. That is the only mention of material access. For information access: “Security concerns are less salient in the current culture of the life sciences, as evidenced by the number of projects explicitly intending to create, identify, and publicly share a list of viruses ranked by apparent threat level.” "Under the current system, a scientist who warns the world of a pandemic-class agent inadvertently provides widespread access to skilled "lone wolf" actors who rely on commercial DNA synthesis, as well as well-resourced actors who do not” His argument appears to be that publishing information about potential pandemic-creating agents or mutations gives people the information to create them... Without considering the opposite side of that coin - it also gives people the information to stop them. Overall... Not very convincing, to me, at least. The many comparisons to nuclear weapons, in his quotes, feel odd to me. It's the comparison between life, an ever-evolving, extremely complex system, to nuclear bombs and their proliferation, which is exclusively a weapon or energy source. There are no "cures" or "vaccines" for a nuclear explosion, but there is for viruses and bacteria. So while there is pretty much only danger in the democratization of information about nuclear weapons, there is undoubtedly upsides to the information on diseases. The collaboration and wealth of information that scientists had on the subject is precisely what led to the super fast discovery of a COVID-19 vaccine! But, solely the arguments aside... This was a weird video, very unlike most of Kurzgesagt's. The changing of the title and thumbnail (which is done solely for engagement - and Kurzgesagt hasn't shown they cared for that before). The fact this video was paid for by the same organization that paid the man who wrote the book this video is based on, essentially saying exactly what's in said book, the weirdly lackluster sources compared to normal videos, the bad analogy in nuclear, not looking at an opposing viewpoint, not going in-depth about something crucial (like who has access to viral materials), the odd structure, the sub-par animation.... I won't read too much into it, but I can say confidently that this is not the standard quality that I expect from Kurzgesagt, and that I am very disappointed in them for this. Thank you for reading this. Sorry that it's so long... But Kurzgesagt is a huge channel, doing a lot of good, I think, so I don't want them to go down the route of whatever led to this video being created. Edit: Spelling mistakes

811 |