Covid-19 and public debate over gain-of-function research on potentially pandemic pathogens

References

1. Aakhus, Mark, and Sally Jackson
   2005 Technology, interaction, and design. InK. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp.411–435). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Akpan, Nsikan, and Victoria Jaggard
   2020 Fauci: No scientific evidence the coronavirus was made in a Chinese lab. National Geographic, May4, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/05/anthony-fauci-no-scientific-evidence-the-coronavirus-was-made-in-a-chinese-lab-cvd/
   [Google Scholar]
3. Arjunan, Akshaya
   2015 Statement. Eighth Marcella L. Finegold Memorial Public Debate. Montefiore Hospital, University of Pittsburgh. April27. Pittsburgh, PA, https://pitt.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=9b31b797-0b81-47e5-b9e9-9cacff0280c1&query=marcella%20l.%20finegold
4. Bigi, Sara
   2014 Evaluating argumentative moves in medical consultations. InS. Rubinelli & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Argumentation and Health (pp.51–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/bct.64.05big
   https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.64.05big [Google Scholar]
5. Borger, Julian
   2020 Mike Pompeo: ‘enormous evidence’ coronavirus came from Chinese lab. The Guardian (London), May3, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/03/mike-pompeo-donald-trump-coronavirus-chinese-laboratory
   [Google Scholar]
6. Burke, Kenneth
   1984 Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Chafets, Zev
   2006 Ministers of debate. The New York Times, March19.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Collins, Francis S.
   2017 NIH lifts funding pause on gain-of-function research. Statement from the NIH director, December17, https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/nih-lifts-funding-pause-gain-function-research
   [Google Scholar]
9. Duprex, W. Paul, Ron A. M. Fouchier, Michael J. Imperiale, Marc Lipsitch, & David A. Relman
   2015 Gain-of-function experiments: time for a real debate. Nature Reviews Microbiology13(1), 58–64. 10.1038/nrmicro3405
   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3405 [Google Scholar]
10. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2010 Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
11. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2015 Argumentation studies’ five estates. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-dialectics (pp.81–109). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_5 [Google Scholar]
12. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2018 Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
13. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,
    1996 Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Scott C. Jacobs, & Sally A. Jackson
    1993 Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    2003 A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511616389
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389 [Google Scholar]
16. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    2015 Pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentative discourse. InF. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse (pp.543–555). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
17. English, Eric, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief, and Carly Woods
    2007 Debate as a weapon of mass destruction. Communication & Critical/Cultural Studies41:222–226. 10.1080/14791420701296646
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420701296646 [Google Scholar]
18. Fahnestock, Jeanne and Marie Secor
    1988 The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written Communication5(4):427–43. 10.1177/0741088388005004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088388005004002 [Google Scholar]
19. Fauci, Anthony, and Rand Paul
    2020 Statements. Hearing before U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. July20. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/fauci-walensky-covid-19-response-testimony-senate-hearing-transcript-july-20
20. Goodnight, G. Thomas
    2006 Complex cases and legitimation inference: Extending the Toulmin model to deliberative argument in controversy. InDavid Hitchcock and Bart Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation (pp.39–48). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑4938‑5_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-5_4 [Google Scholar]
21. Goodnight, G. Thomas and Roosmaryn Pilgram
    2011 A doctor’s ethos enhancing maneuvers in medical consultation. InE. Feteris, B. Garssen, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics (pp.135–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.163.10goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.163.10goo [Google Scholar]
22. Goodrum, Felicia
    , 2023 Virology under the microscope – a call for rational discourse. Journal of Virology97(2):1–11. 10.1128/jvi.00089‑23
    https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00089-23 [Google Scholar]
23. Gordon, Genevieve, and Ben Wetherbee
    2022 Masked meanings: COVID-19 and the subversion of stasis hierarchy. Rhetoric Review41(4):249–265. 10.1080/07350198.2022.2109402
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07350198.2022.2109402 [Google Scholar]
24. Graham, D. W.
    (2021) Heraclitus. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/heraclitus/
    [Google Scholar]
25. Greene, Ronald W., and Darrin Hicks
    1995 Lost convictions: Debating both sides and the ethical self-fashioning of liberal citizens. Cultural Studies191, 100–126. 10.1080/09502380500040928
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380500040928 [Google Scholar]
26. Greene, Ronald W., and Darrin Hicks
    2009 Conscientious objections: Debating both sides and the cultures of democracy. Paper presented at theSixteenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Alta, UT, July 30–August 2.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Herfst, Sander, et al
    2012 Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science3361, 1534–1541. 10.1126/science.1213362
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1213362 [Google Scholar]
28. Hite, Adele H., and Andrew Carter
    2019 Examining assumptions in science-based policy: Critical health communication, stasis theory, and public health nutrition guidance. Rhetoric of Health and Medicine2(2):147–175. 10.5744/rhm.2019.1009
    https://doi.org/10.5744/rhm.2019.1009 [Google Scholar]
29. Hoppmann, Michael J.
    2014 A modern theory of stasis. Philosophy & Rhetoric47(3):273–296. 10.5325/philrhet.47.3.0273
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.47.3.0273 [Google Scholar]
30. Imperiale, Michael
    2015 Statement. Eighth Marcella L. Finegold Memorial Public Debate. Montefiore Hospital, University of Pittsburgh. April 27. Pittsburgh, PA, https://pitt.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=9b31b797-0b81-47e5-b9e9-9cacff0280c1&query=marcella%20l.%20finegold
    [Google Scholar]
31. Isenstadt, Alex
    2020 GOP memo urges anti-China assault over coronavirus. Politico, April24, https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/24/gop-memo-anti-china-coronavirus-207244
    [Google Scholar]
32. Jackson, Sally
    2015 Design thinking in argumentation theory and practice. Argumentation291:243–263. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9353‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9353-7 [Google Scholar]
33. Kock, Christian
    2009 Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation231, 61–80. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9115‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9115-x [Google Scholar]
34. Kock, Christian
    2017 Deliberative rhetoric: Arguing about doing. Windsor, ON: Windsor Studies in Argumentation. 10.22329/wsia.05.2017
    https://doi.org/10.22329/wsia.05.2017 [Google Scholar]
35. Labrie, Nanon H. M.
    2015 The promise and prospects of argumentation for public health communication. Journal of Public Health Research4(1), 47–49. 10.4081/jphr.2015.547
    https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2015.547 [Google Scholar]
36. Labrie, Nanon and Peter J. Schulz
    2014 Does argumentation matter? A systematic literature review on the role of argumentation in doctor-patient communication. Health Communication29(10), 996–1008. 10.1080/10410236.2013.829018
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.829018 [Google Scholar]
37. Levine, Arthur
    2015 Statement. Eighth Marcella L. Finegold Memorial Public Debate. Montefiore Hospital, University of Pittsburgh. April27. Pittsburgh, PA, https://pitt.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=9b31b797-0b81-47e5-b9e9-9cacff0280c1&query=marcella%20l.%20finegold
    [Google Scholar]
38. Lipsitch, Marc
    2015 Statement. Eighth Marcella L. Finegold Memorial Public Debate. Montefiore Hospital, University of Pittsburgh. April27. Pittsburgh, PA, https://pitt.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=9b31b797-0b81-47e5-b9e9-9cacff0280c1&query=marcella%20l.%20finegold
    [Google Scholar]
39. Matheson, Calum
    2019 Stasis in the net of affect. Philosophy and Rhetoric52(1): 71–77. 10.5325/philrhet.52.1.0071
    https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.52.1.0071 [Google Scholar]
40. Mendelson, Michael
    2002 Many sides: A Protagorean approach to the theory, practice and pedagogy of argument. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9890‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9890-3 [Google Scholar]
41. Mitchell, Gordon R.
    2010 Switch-side debating meets demand-driven rhetoric of science. Rhetoric and Public Affairs13(1): 95–120. 10.2307/41955592
    https://doi.org/10.2307/41955592 [Google Scholar]
42. Nadeau, Ray
    1958 Hermogenes on “stock issues” in deliberative speaking. Speech Monographs25(1):59–66. 10.1080/03637755809375225
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637755809375225 [Google Scholar]
43. O’Donnell and Associates
    O’Donnell and Associates 2020 Corona big book. Alexandria, VA: O’Donnell and Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Owens, Brian
    2014 Anthrax and smallpox errors highlight gaps in US biosafety. The Lancet3841, 294. 10.1016/S0140‑6736(14)61246‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61246-0 [Google Scholar]
45. Pilgram, Roosmaryn
    2014 Reasonableness of a doctor’s argument by authority: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the specific soundness conditions. InS. Rubinelli & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Argumentation and Health (pp.33–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/jaic.1.1.04pil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.1.1.04pil [Google Scholar]
46. Putnam, Linda L., Steve R. Wilson, and Dudley B. Turner
    1990 The evolution of policy arguments in teachers’ negotiations. Argumentation41, 129–152. 10.1007/BF00175419
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00175419 [Google Scholar]
47. Rajprohat, Swati
    2015 Statement. Eighth Marcella L. Finegold Memorial Public Debate. Montefiore Hospital, University of Pittsburgh. April27. Pittsburgh, PA, https://pitt.hosted.panopto.com/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=9b31b797-0b81-47e5-b9e9-9cacff0280c1&query=marcella%20l.%20finegold
    [Google Scholar]
48. Ratcliffe, John L.
    2023 Prepared testimony. Hearing. US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. US House Oversight Committee. April18, https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Ratcliffe-Prepared-Testimony.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
49. Rubinelli, Sara and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    (Eds.) 2014 Argumentation and health. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.64
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.64 [Google Scholar]
50. Schmidt, Charles
    2021 Gain-of-function research: all in the eye of the beholder. Undark, September27, https://undark.org/2021/09/27/gain-of-function-research-all-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder/
    [Google Scholar]
51. Schulz, Peter J., and Sara Rubinelli
    2008 Arguing “for” the patient: Informed consent and strategic maneuvering in doctor-patient interaction. Argumentation22(3), 423–432. 10.1007/s10503‑008‑9086‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-008-9086-y [Google Scholar]
52. Shackley, Simon
    2000 Commentary on the debate betweenJames Hansen and Patrick Michaels, November 1998 Social Epistemology14(2/3), 181–186. 10.1080/02691720050199216
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02691720050199216 [Google Scholar]
53. Sloane, Thomas,
    ed. 2001 Encyclopedia of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Snoeck Henkemans, Francisca A., and Dima Mohammed
    2014 Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making. InS. Rubinelli & F. A. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Argumentation and Health (pp.19–32). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/bct.64.03moh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.64.03moh [Google Scholar]
55. Sun, Lena H.
    2014 CDC chief admits pattern of safety lapses after mishandling anthrax, other pathogens. Washington Post, July16.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Thielmann, A. Gregory
    2007 Intelligence in preventive military strategy. InW. W. Keller & G. R. Mitchell (Eds.), Hitting First: Preventive Force in US Security Strategy (pp.153–174). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Google Scholar]
57. United States. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council
    United States. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council 2015 Potential risks and benefits of gain-of-function research: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
    [Google Scholar]
58. United States. National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity
    United States. National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity 2016 Recommendations for the evaluation and oversight of proposed gain of function research, May, https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NSABB_Final_Report_Recommendations_Evaluation_Oversight_Proposed_Gain_of_Function_Research.pdf
59. United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
    United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence 2020 Intelligence community statement on origins of COVID-19. ODNI News Release No. 11–20. April30, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/item/2112-intelligence-community-statement-on-origins-of-covid-19
60. United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
    United States. Office of the Director of National Intelligence 2021 Declassified assessment on Covid-19 origins. Intelligence Community assessment, October29, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2263-declassified-assessment-on-covid-19-origins
    [Google Scholar]
61. United States. Office of Science and Technology Policy and Department of Health and Human Services
    United States. Office of Science and Technology Policy and Department of Health and Human Services 2014 Doing diligence to assess the risks and benefits of life sciences gain-of-function research. October17, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2014/10/17/doing-diligence-assess-risks-and-benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-research
62. University of Pittsburgh. Department of Medicine. Office of the Chair
    University of Pittsburgh. Department of Medicine. Office of the Chair 2022 Medicine grand rounds, https://dom.pitt.edu/grandrounds/
63. Walden, R., Fritze, K., Hayashi, H., Miklashevichs, E., Harling, H., & Schell, J.
    1994 Activation tagging: a means of isolating genes implicated as playing a role in plant growth and development. Plant molecular biology, 261, 1521–1528. 10.1007/BF00016488
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00016488 [Google Scholar]
64. Wallace-Wells, David
    2023a This debate hasn’t made us safer. The New York Times, March5.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Wallace-Wells, David
    2023b We could easily make risky virological research safer. The New York Times, May10.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Walsh, Lynda
    2010 Before climategate: Visual strategies to integrate ethos across the “is/ought” divide in the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Summary for Policy Makers. Poroi6(2), https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/article/id/3406/. 10.13008/2151‑2957.1066
    https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1066 [Google Scholar]
67. Wierda, Renske, and Jacky Visser
    2014 Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs as an argumentative activity type. InS. Rubinelli & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Argumentation and Health (pp.81–96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/bct.64.07wie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.64.07wie [Google Scholar]
68. Woodward, Aylin
    2020 Both the new coronavirus and SARS outbreaks likely started in Chinese “wet markets.” Business Insider, February26, https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-chinese-wet-market-photos-2020-1
    [Google Scholar]
69. Zimmer, Carl, and James Gorman
    2021 Fight over Covid’s origins renews debate on risks of lab work. New York Times, June20, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/science/covid-lab-leak-wuhan.html
    [Google Scholar]