Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
The bill prohibits federal research grants to any institution of higher education or research institute that is conducting defined "gain-of-function" research. It defines gain-of-function to include genetic alterations that increase infectivity, transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range for specified organisms (influenza, coronaviruses, select agents and toxins).
Progressives stress protection of scientific capacity and surveillance.
Broad funding ban affecting many universities and agencies; research community opposition likely, though biosecurity supporters exist.
The bill prohibits federal research grants to any institution of higher education or research institute that is conducting defined "gain-of-function" research.
It defines gain-of-function to include genetic alterations that increase infectivity, transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range for specified organisms (influenza, coronaviruses, select agents and toxins).
The prohibition applies notwithstanding other law and is framed as a moratorium on federally supported dangerous gain-of-function research.
Contentious subject, broad ban with weak compromise features, strong stakeholder resistance; possible amendments but standalone enactment is uncertain.
How solid the drafting looks.
Progressives stress protection of scientific capacity and surveillance.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress protection of scientific capacity and surveillance.
Cautiously supportive of strong limits on risky pathogen research to protect public health and communities.
Concerned the bill's broad definition and blunt funding ban could hamper essential surveillance, vaccine, and basic science work without clear oversight or mitigation funding.
Views the moratorium as a reasonable precaution but sees the bill as incomplete.
Wants clearer definitions, targeted scope, sunset or review clauses, and mechanisms to avoid unintended harm to necessary public-health research.
Generally supportive because it restricts federal funding of high-risk biological experiments and addresses national-security concerns.
Prefers limiting taxpayer support for dangerous research, though some worry about preserving necessary defense-related capabilities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Contentious subject, broad ban with weak compromise features, strong stakeholder resistance; possible amendments but standalone enactment is uncertain.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress protection of scientific capacity and surveillance.
Contentious subject, broad ban with weak compromise features, strong stakeholder resistance; possible amendments but standalone enactment i…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Dangerous Viral Gain of Function Research Moratorium Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.