Science From the Fringe

In the thirteenth episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson discuss whether AI is creating new biological threats or simply amplifying existing ones.

The discussion centers on Anthropic’s September 10 threat assessment report, which describes five cases of scientists using Claude in ways Anthropic believes could support biological weapons development. The concern was not just the research itself, but also efforts by some users to evade restrictions, bypass safeguards, or obscure aspects of their work. The report is the subject of Simon’s recent essay Anthropic Park, which inspired the episode’s title.

Bryce and Simon discuss the possible motives of the scientists described in Anthropic’s report and place those cases in the context of earlier gain-of-function research, including the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus and the Fouchier-Kawaoka H5N1 experiments. Simon also raises a broader question about the responsibility of scientific journals when potentially dangerous research is already online and available for use by LLMs.

What is the real biological threat from AI? Bryce argues that the main risk is not autonomous AI creating new pathogens, but AI amplifying existing threats by making dangerous research easier and more efficient. Thus, the risk is amplification, not autonomy.

(recorded September 20, 2026)

On September 11, 2026, I hosted the inaugural event of The Purpose of Science Lecture Series at Rutgers University: Scientific Responsibility in Research on Dangerous Pathogens.

The event featured Simon Wain-Hobson, Professor Emeritus at the Institut Pasteur; Richard H. Ebright, Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University; and Neil L. Harrison, Professor of Anesthesiology and Molecular Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Columbia University.

I’m releasing the three-hour discussion in two parts.

Part 1 traced the history from Asilomar and early debates over scientific responsibility through the post-9/11 expansion of U.S. biodefense research, the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, the H5N1 gain-of-function experiments, the 2014 federal pause, and the 2015 SARS coronavirus chimera experiment.

Part 2 picks up with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.

Neil Harrison examines the epidemiological evidence surrounding the origin of COVID-19, including the Huanan Seafood Market, geographic clustering of early cases, comparisons with New York City, and the later outbreak associated with Beijing’s Xinfadi Market.

The discussion then turns to the institutional response to the COVID origins question. Richard Ebright discusses the February 1, 2020 teleconference involving Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, Jeremy Farrar, and scientists who later authored “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” along with subsequent communications and the role of research funding.

We then discuss the SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site, the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, current U.S. policy on dangerous gain-of-function research, and the emerging risks posed by AI-enabled biology.

The discussion closes with the precautionary principle, audience questions, and calls to action for how high-risk biological research should be governed going forward.

About the Lecture Series

The Purpose of Science Lecture Series brings prominent scientists, physicians, journalists, policymakers, and other public voices to Rutgers to examine the purpose and responsibilities of science—where scientific practice falls short of that purpose, why those failures occur, and what practical solutions might address them.

Learn more:

https://waksman.rutgers.edu/seminars/purpose

Support the series through the Rutgers University Foundation:

https://give.rutgersfoundation.org/waksman/4025.html

On September 11, 2026, I hosted the inaugural event of The Purpose of Science Lecture Series at Rutgers University: Scientific Responsibility in Research on Dangerous Pathogens.

The event brought together Simon Wain-Hobson, Professor Emeritus at the Institut Pasteur; Richard H. Ebright, Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers University; and Neil L. Harrison, Professor of Anesthesiology and Molecular Pharmacology and Therapeutics at Columbia University, for a historical examination of how scientists and scientific institutions have confronted the risks created by advances in biological research.

I’m releasing the three-hour discussion in two parts.

Part 1 begins with Simon Wain-Hobson’s call for scientists to adopt a Hippocratic-style commitment to “do no harm.” From there, the discussion moves through the 1975 Asilomar conference, Jonathan Beckwith’s early warnings about the social implications of molecular biology, the Biological Weapons Convention, the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax incident, and Simon’s experience organizing an open scientific meeting on competing hypotheses about the origins of HIV.

The timeline then turns to 9/11 and the Amerithrax attacks, the rapid expansion of U.S. biodefense research, Richard Ebright’s early opposition to that expansion, the open letter signed by 758 scientists, and Anthony Fauci’s response.

We then discuss the reconstruction of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus, the H5N1 gain-of-function experiments that ignited a major controversy over high-risk pathogen research, the 2014 federal gain-of-function pause, and the 2015 SARS coronavirus chimera experiment.

Part 2 continues the timeline with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the Huanan Seafood Market, the institutional response to the COVID origins debate, the furin cleavage site and DEFUSE proposal, current U.S. policy on dangerous research, and the emerging risks posed by AI-enabled biology.

About the Lecture Series

The Purpose of Science Lecture Series brings prominent scientists, physicians, journalists, policymakers, and other public voices to Rutgers to examine the purpose and responsibilities of science—where scientific practice falls short of that purpose, why those failures occur, and what practical solutions might address them.

Learn more:https://waksman.rutgers.edu/seminars/purpose

Support the series through the Rutgers University Foundation:https://give.rutgersfoundation.org/waksman/4025.html

In the twelfth episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson discuss the newly released U.S. Government Policy for Stopping High-Risk Life Sciences Research and what it means for the future of dangerous gain-of-function (dGOF) research.

Simon gives the new policy high marks, highlighting its clear definition of dGOF and two provisions he did not expect: restrictions involving the creation of mirror life and the use of AI-designed genomes to create novel biological agents. They also examine the seven categories of experiments covered by the policy, their connection to the 2004 Fink Report, and the prohibition on reconstructing eradicated or extinct biological agents.

The conversation then turns to how the policy will work in practice. Bryce and Simon discuss international research, remaining gaps involving private and philanthropic funding, and whether researchers or institutions will be able to exploit loopholes. They both agree that the policy establishes a meaningful chain of accountability—from investigators to their institutions to federal oversight—with potential sanctions for noncompliance.

Bryce also identifies areas where the policy could be strengthened, including language stating that violations “may” rather than “will” result in penalties. They emphasize an important distinction: restricting dangerous gain-of-function research does not mean scientists should stop studying dangerous pathogens. As Simon puts it, scientists need to study dangerous microbes that already exist—they don’t need to create new ones.

Finally, Bryce and Simon discuss what comes next, including the requirement to establish an independent third-party review body, the challenge of coordinating implementation across federal agencies, and the need for legislation that would make the new restrictions more durable. They conclude by discussing how politics can distort reactions to science policy and why the new framework should be judged on its substance rather than which administration produced it.

(recorded August 25, 2026)

In the seventh episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s new Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard, a resource designed to make long-term trends in extreme weather accessible to scientists, journalists, policymakers, and the public.

Roger explains how this project was motivated by the Trump administration’s removal of climate information from EPA websites. Although frequently critical of the politicization and exaggeration of climate science, Roger argues that removing taxpayer-funded climate data was a mistake—and that making the underlying evidence accessible is essential to a more informed climate debate.

The episode explores what the data actually show about heat waves, tornadoes, floods, droughts, winter storms, wildfires, and hurricanes, as well as the crucial distinction between detecting a change and attributing that change to human activity. Roger explains why heat waves show a detectable increase while many other extremes do not, and how looking across multiple measures can guard against cherry-picking.

Bryce and Roger also discuss how society should respond to increasing heat, including the roles of emissions reductions and adaptation; how Roger used AI to build the dashboard; and the importance of transparency and verification in rebuilding trust in scientific institutions and concludes with a preview of Roger’s just launched Global Extreme Weather and Climate Change Dashboard.

(recorded August 19, 2026)

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Tim Hunt, CEO of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine (ARM), about cell and gene therapies and the difficult questions surrounding how they should be regulated by the FDA.

The episode follows a March conversation with cardiologist Anish Koka about Vinay Prasad’s controversial tenure at the FDA. Together, the two episodes explore a fundamental question: When patients have devastating diseases and few treatment options, should the FDA demand stronger evidence before approving new therapies—or accept greater uncertainty to give patients faster access to experimental treatments?

In the March episode, Koka defended Prasad’s efforts to strengthen the FDA’s evidentiary standards, arguing that greater scrutiny was necessary to protect patients from ineffective or harmful treatments—particularly in the rare-disease space, where patient desperation, financial incentives, and political pressure can complicate regulatory decisions.

Tim offers a different perspective. He argues that the FDA became too rigid in its demands for randomized controlled trials, effectively “moving the goalposts” for rare-disease therapies. He contends that traditional trials are often impractical or ethically problematic for small populations with rapidly progressive diseases and that patients should have a greater voice in determining acceptable levels of risk and uncertainty.

Bryce and Tim also discuss the scientific risks of genetically modifying embryos, the potential for human enhancement and eugenics, whether germline editing could ever be demonstrated to be safe and ethical, and ARM’s call for a 10-year moratorium on heritable human genome editing.

The episode concludes with Tim’s perspective on the future of regenerative medicine, from CAR-T therapies and rare diseases to potential treatments for autoimmune disorders, Parkinson’s disease, and other more common conditions.

(recorded July 21, 2026)

In the sixth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay examining the legacy of the influential 2004 Science paper introducing the concept of “stabilization wedges.” Roger’s essay was prompted by a recent ProPublica investigation revealing that this paper was heavily shaped by BP executives whose contributions were not acknowledged in the paper.

Roger explains how the stabilization wedges paper became one of the most influential papers in the history of climate policy by promoting the idea that existing technologies were sufficient to address climate change. The paper became a powerful advocacy tool, shaping philanthropic investments, climate policy, and public discourse while contributing to efforts to marginalize scientists who argued that significant technological innovation would still be required.

The conversation then turns to broader questions about the relationship between science, politics, and advocacy. Bryce and Roger discuss the distinction between conducting science and using scientific publications to market predetermined policy agendas, arguing that the latter can undermine both scientific integrity and public trust.

Roger and Bryce also discuss the striking parallels between the stabilization wedges paper and the 2020 Nature Medicine paper, The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. They discuss how both papers were used to influence public debate, the importance of transparency in scientific authorship, and the responsibility of scientific journals to investigate allegations of ghostwriting and misconduct in order to preserve confidence in the scientific record.

(recorded July 24, 2026)

In the fifth episode of In Defense of Climate Change, Bryce Nickels and climate policy scholar Roger Pielke Jr. discuss Roger’s recent essay which presents a data-driven analysis estimating how many lives are lost because of Europe’s low air-conditioning adoption. His analysis suggests that if Europe had air-conditioning penetration comparable to the United States or Japan, tens of thousands of deaths during severe heat waves could potentially be avoided.

Bryce and Roger also discuss the political and moral dimensions of climate policy. Bryce argues that governments should not prioritize reducing energy consumption over protecting human lives, contending that Europe’s low adoption of air conditioning reflects this misplaced priority. Roger argues that the real challenge is not to consume less energy, but to produce abundant low-carbon energy that supports both emissions reductions and effective adaptation. The conversation concludes with a broader discussion of technology, democracy, and the role of adaptation in building resilience to climate change.

(recorded July 1, 2026)

In this episode of Science From the Fringe, host Bryce Nickels speaks with Anthony Bellotti, founder and president of the White Coat Waste Project, a government watchdog organization dedicated to exposing and ending taxpayer-funded animal experimentation. The episode examines the tension between mission-driven advocacy and institutional incrementalism, asking whether meaningful reform comes from working within existing systems—or from holding those systems accountable when they fail to live up to their promises.

Anthony discusses how a summer job in an animal laboratory at age 17 ultimately led him to create White Coat Waste and explains why the organization rejected the traditional playbook of the animal-rights movement in favor of a strategy focused on government accountability, taxpayer transparency, and bipartisan coalition-building.

The conversation explores the ethical and scientific debates surrounding animal research, including whether taxpayer-funded animal experimentation is ever justified, how society should balance potential human benefits against animal suffering, and whether biomedical research has become overly reliant on animal models.

Bryce and Anthony also discuss White Coat Waste’s increasingly public disagreements with NIH leadership, including the organization’s recent complaint to the HHS Office of Inspector General, allegations that NIH officials have made misleading statements about their authority to reduce animal experimentation, and broader questions of institutional accountability and public trust.

Anthony also responds to criticism of White Coat Waste’s tactics, including allegations that the organization’s advocacy has contributed to threats directed at NIH officials and criticism of its willingness to work with controversial figures such as Laura Loomer to advance its mission.

(recorded June 14, 2026)

In the eleventh episode of In Defense of Virology, Bryce Nickels and Simon Wain-Hobson examine what Simon sees as a decades-long failure of the virology community to seriously confront the potential risks and societal consequences of its own research. As experiments became increasingly sophisticated and controversial, Simon argues that repeated opportunities for reflection, debate, and reform were missed.

Drawing on themes from his essay “Cowards Die Many Times,” Simon traces a series of pivotal moments, beginning with the 2002 synthesis of poliovirus and continuing through the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus, the controversial H5N1 gain-of-function experiments, and ultimately the COVID-19 pandemic. Each episode raised important questions about the risks of creating and disseminating information about potentially dangerous pathogens, yet meaningful debate was discouraged, avoided, or actively shut down.

The discussion covers how prominent scientists and institutions shaped these debates and, in Simon’s view, often discouraged meaningful scrutiny of controversial research. Examples include a 2005 Science editorial by Nobel laureate Philip Sharp defending the reconstruction of the 1918 influenza virus (“1918 Flu and Responsible Science”) and influential editorials in December 2011 (“A flu risk worth taking”) and June 2012 (“Benefits and Risks of Influenza Research: Lessons Learned”) by Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci defending Kawaoka and Fouchier’s controversial bird flu gain-of-function experiments. Simon argues that appeals to authority, institutional incentives, and concerns about career advancement helped create a culture in which questioning risky research became professionally and socially costly.

Using a 2020 paper on COVID-19 origins (“The Origin of COVID-19 and Why It Matters”) as a case study, Simon also explains how unscrupulous scientists can transform unsupported claims into "facts" through repeated citation, institutional endorsement, and publication in prestigious journals. Once amplified by prominent scientists and influential publications, such claims can acquire the appearance of established knowledge even when the underlying evidence is weak or entirely absent.

(recorded June 6, 2026)