https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058281
Even still, H5N1 has repeatedly infected humans in the wild... the most famous case in Hong Kong infecting 18 people and killing 6 of those. So you can make the case that GoF is irresponsible given the stakes, but it seems important to acknowledge that you're basically just hoping these horrific viruses don't mutate as we predict them to.
When virologists talk about the inevitability of pandemics, this is the exact mechanism that worries them.
Not doing the GoF work is absolutely no guarantee that you’ll avoid these strains. I’m not convinced it’s worth the energy either, but playing ostrich isn’t a viable alternative.
I'm sure that seemed intensely reasonable to all the heavily informed podiatrists that were involved.
Don't "strain out a fly and swallow a camel"...
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6547/dang...
Also I went to a shocking wet market the other weekend in Seattle. Raw fish on display, raw meat galore in coolers, produce, etc.
It would be grammatically incorrect in English to put a single comma there. A correct alternative would be to put a comma there and also change "that" to ", which" - ie, reading, "Controversial experiments, which could make bird flu more risky, to resume". The entire relative clause needs to be sandwiched with commas; putting a single one at the end is incorrect.
That said, the title as it stands is grammatically correct, although it is potentially ambiguous in meaning.
Other languages have different rules about comma usage, but this is how it works in English.
Because after Covid it sure seems like whatever it is, there are a lot of much lower hanging fruit as far as detection, early testing, contact tracing infrastructure, understanding what air is, etc that would do a lot more to prepare for the next pandemic.
How many times would you be comfortable rolling a million-sided die for humanity's extinction?