Thread by @Ayjchan

Feeling like @nicholsonbaker8’s article started a food fight amongst scientists and science journalists on twitter...

https://twitter.com/rkhamsi/status/1346117003719925760

Maybe some readers are confused what the article is about. It is not proof that sars2/covid came from a lab. If @nicholsonbaker8 had proof that the virus was from a lab, he should’ve been on the @who and @thelancet origins investigation teams.
nymag.com/intelligencer/…

Reading many twitter comments in response to the article, it looks like people are outraged by the speculation of what a lab origins scenario could look like, how this could be politicised, and how top virologists are pitted against ‘cranks’ (scientists from adjacent fields).

These above are all not scientific arguments. You’re upset that someone is speculating that lab origins are possible (something the top virologist at WIV speculated herself). You’re upset that this could be political. You’re upset that experts’ opinions could be being questioned.

Is the article a bible? No, it’s not. It’s an opinion piece highlighting the doubts that some scientists and non-scientists have about the origins of sars2/covid. And @nicholsonbaker8 says that his personal take, based on public information, is that it was likely a lab leak.

You can disagree with his opinion/guess, but is this a conspiracy theory on the level of 5G or micro-chipping that needs to be deleted?

I guess a lot of people and scientists still think lab escape is a conspiracy theory.

Talking to people on twitter and growing increasingly confused about what readers expected of this article.

I went back to re-read the article again to see if I had read it completely wrong to have such a different reaction from other people. nymag.com/intelligencer/…

A lot of people say the article is speculative and does not provide a balanced view of both arguments (natural vs lab origins of covid) - but this wasn't part of my expectations as a reader.

The writer repeatedly says this is what he thinks/believes - in other words speculates.

Some say, how could he think this came from the lab, hasn't he considered that chances of natural origin are very high?

People think what they think. They interpret different factors differently, such as the presence of a top SARS lab in the same city of initial covid outbreak.

If you're looking for an A vs B debate style analysis, this really isn't what this article is.

This article is very much a 'I believe in B and I'll tell you why' type of article.

So I don't understand why readers expect the author to put forth a case for A.

Why I personally liked the article- it was straight up hilarious to see how @nicholsonbaker8 described some of the things scientists do. And I also learnt a lot about the Gain of Function debate.

Reading the article didn't move my position on whether Sars2/covid came from a lab.

... which I gather is what people on twitter worry about- that reading this article will convince many people that the virus is from a lab.

I don't know how serious of a concern this is. The public has been told again and again that scientific consensus is natural origins.

My biggest takeaway from the article wasn't that sars2/covid is from a lab. Who knows where covid came from?

My biggest takeaway was that scientists need to talk about the types of research we're doing and find ways to reduce the risk of potential outbreaks from lab pathogens.