Is the Debate and “Pause” on Experiments That Alter Pathogens with Pandemic Potential Influencing Future Plans of Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Fellows?

Pfeiffer, Julie K.

I have a few thoughts about the poll results. First, this was an informal poll developed by a poll-making novice (me) with a limited sample size, quasi-limited advertising, and a self-reporting format. It can be argued that some of the questions/answers/text could have been phrased differently. Therefore, there is room for improvement in future surveys that would be developed ideally by trained individuals using something more sophisticated than Sur-veyMonkey. That said, the data generated by this poll suggest that this is an important topic worthy of follow-up and consideration. I invite others to improve upon this initial effort (see reference 5 for an example). Second, trainees are aware of the debate and research pause; 95% had heard about the debate. This was impressive to me, since many of my microbiology faculty colleagues were unaware of the debate until it was mentioned at a faculty meeting this month. Perhaps I should not be surprised that trainees are well informed. After all, the millennial generation is the most connected, technologically savvy generation in history. Third, the debate and research pause are influencing future plans of virology trainees. Twenty-eight percent of respondents (33% of virologists [42 trainees]) said that they are less likely to work on influenza, SARS, or MERS virus in the future. Respiratory viruses are a press-ing global concern, and a potential loss of future investigators is a serious threat.