How to Ban Gain-of-Function in America: Repeal or Amend the 1989 'Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act'
The U.S. must repeal or amend the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act to close the loophole that allows gain-of-function experiments under the guise of "peaceful purposes."
In order to ban gain-of-function experiments in the country, the United States must repeal or amend the ‘Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989.’
Follow Jon Fleetwood: Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood / Facebook @realjonfleetwood
The Act enshrined into U.S. law the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention Treaty, an international agreement ratified by America and over 100 other nations.
The Biological Weapons Convention Treaty was created in response to the global recognition of the catastrophic potential of bioweapons, exemplified by their development during World War II and subsequent programs by nations such as the United States, the Soviet Union, and Japan.
These agreements sought to prevent the escalation of biological warfare in a post-nuclear age.
Countries that have not signed the treaty include Israel, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Kiribati.
Article I of the international Treaty says that State Parties cannot “develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production.”
The treaty effectively prohibits the production of chemical, bacteriological, or biological weapons (bioweapons) in signatory nations.
Gain-of-function experiments by definition enhance the transmissibility or virulence of a potentially pandemic pathogen, making the product of such experimentation something that could be used as a biological weapon.
For example, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, was the result of gain-of-function research, as affirmed by the FBI, Department of Energy, various U.S. intelligence authorities, and the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic under the House of Representatives Committee On Oversight and Accountability.
Over 1 million Americans were killed by COVID, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Bioweapons Treaty Loophole Carried Into U.S. Law
So how are gain-of-function experiments allowed if bioweapons creation is banned by the Biological Weapons Convention Treaty?
The treaty contains a loophole that allows countries to produce bioweapons so long as the production has “justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.”
This language has allowed research programs to blur the lines between defensive and offensive bioweapons development.
Critics argue that gain-of-function experiments, even when labeled as defensive, inherently carry dual-use risks in that they could be utilized for both benevolent and harmful purposes.
One infamous example of dual-use research is the 2011 H5N1 avian influenza experiments, where scientists engineered the virus to make it transmissible in mammals.
While proponents argued it would aid vaccine development, critics warned it created a pathogen that, if released accidentally or intentionally, could spark a global pandemic.
The loophole has also been at the center of recent controversies, such as U.S. funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth Alliance.
Critics argue that such funding confuses legitimate research and high-risk experimentation, ultimately contributing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
You can read the treaty text below:
The international bioweapons treaty loophole was carried into the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act.
The Act bans “the development, production, stockpiling, transferring, acquisition, retention, or possession, or the attempted development, production, stockpiling, transferring, acquisition, retention, or possession of any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system.”
The legislation defines ‘biological agent’ as “any micro-organism, virus, or infectious substance, capable of causing death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism; deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or material of any kind; or deleterious alteration of the environment.”
However, the 1989 Act allows for the production of these biological agents so long as there is “justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes,” mirroring verbatim the loophole language in the Biological Weapons Convention Treaty.
You can read the full text of the act below:
Close the Loophole or Face the Consequences of Weaponized Pathogens
If gain-of-function experiments are to be banned in the United States, Congress must repeal or amend the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act.
Repealing a law involves the legislative process of removing or reversing an existing law, typically by passing new legislation that rescinds it, which may require majority approval in both houses of Congress and presidential consent, and can result in either a complete abolition of the law or a partial repeal of specific provisions.
Amending a law involves formally changing an existing statute by adding, removing, or modifying provisions, typically requiring legislative approval to update or clarify the law.
Repealing or amending the 1989 Act would require closing the loophole that permits the creation of dangerous pathogens under the guise of defensive research.
Without such reform, the risk of accidental or deliberate misuse of enhanced pathogens remains an unresolved threat to public safety.
Congress could replace the Act with legislation explicitly prohibiting gain-of-function research on potentially pandemic pathogens while establishing an independent oversight body to monitor compliance.
Moreover, the United States should withdraw from the Biological Weapons Convention Treaty or demand its amendment to completely ban the creation of bioweapons, removing any justification for their production under the guise of defensive or peaceful purposes.
The Risks of Gain-of-Function Research Far Outweigh the Benefits
Gain-of-function research inherently poses a dual-use dilemma, where experiments intended to enhance understanding of pathogens can also create the means for catastrophic outbreaks.
Proponents argue that these experiments help prepare for future pandemics, but the evidence suggests otherwise.
The COVID-19 pandemic, likely the result of such research, has already demonstrated the devastating consequences of accidental or deliberate misuse.
Over a million Americans and millions more worldwide have paid the ultimate price for this gamble.
The theoretical benefits of gain-of-function research pale in comparison to the risks.
While scientists may gain insights into pathogen behavior, these findings often do not translate directly into practical tools for pandemic prevention or response.
Treatments developed through safer methods, as well as already approved safe and effective medicines, can achieve similar outcomes without endangering humanity.
Furthermore, the possibility of an enhanced pathogen escaping a laboratory—whether through an accident or malevolent intent—represents an existential threat that no amount of theoretical benefit can justify.
The United States has a moral and practical responsibility to lead by example.
By banning gain-of-function research and removing loopholes in domestic and international law, the nation can take a decisive step toward preventing future pandemics.
Failing to act not only risks another COVID-19-scale disaster but also undermines global trust in the ethical conduct of scientific research.
The stakes are too high to allow the continuation of experiments that could unleash pathogens more deadly than the natural diseases they aim to combat.
Congress must act now to prohibit these high-risk practices and prioritize the safety of Americans and the world over the speculative promises of dangerous research.
Follow Jon Fleetwood: Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood / Facebook @realjonfleetwood
The treaty contains a loophole that allows countries to produce bioweapons so long as the production has “justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.” The loophole has no merit. First, here is no prophylaxis in any shot called a vaccine as the idea is to create serum antibodies that can only REACT to infections, not prevent them. Second, there is no protection in any shot called a vaccine as the targeted and specific antibodies will become suboptimal and prime the recipient for antibody dependent enhancement of infection, and antibody dependent enhancement of disease symptoms.