This work involves the experimental manipulation of a pathogen, most commonly a virus, in ways that increase its capacity to infect and/or spread among people. Because of the obvious risks to humanity, it is — or should be — tightly regulated. The virology community’s debate over gain-of-function research started a decade ago, and involved dangerous influenza viruses like H5N1. It resurfaced last year when as-yet unproven allegations arose that some of the work on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was related to gain of function and not always conducted under appropriate safety conditions.

Whether that truly happened depends largely on how gain-of-function experiments are defined. And therein lies the problem: Whether or not the lab-leak theory on the origin of Covid-19 is correct, virologists have had a long time to come to terms with gain-of-function research.

I am a virologist. The reputation of the world’s virology community has taken a major hit in the past year. Our work is now under close political scrutiny, which is fair provided the attention is rational. Virologists must now work closely with government regulators worldwide to devise and implement reforms. Any remaining ambiguities in how gain-of-function research is defined, conducted and regulated need definitive resolutions. The risks of triggering a new human pandemic must be clearly understood and respected. We must satisfy the public that our work benefits society and does not threaten it.