Some scientists are worried that the lab leak hypothesis, even if unproven, could lead to new regulation of research (& research orgs).
I heard that there is a petition letter being circulated asking scientists to add their names to reject these possible new changes in advance.
I heard that there is a petition letter being circulated asking scientists to add their names to reject these possible new changes in advance.
Needless to say, I think this is a terrible mistake and a trap that scientists are setting for themselves again.
It implies that the signatories are not taking lab origins seriously and their names will be on the line if and when a lab leak causes a future outbreak.
It implies that the signatories are not taking lab origins seriously and their names will be on the line if and when a lab leak causes a future outbreak.
Why not write a letter calling for a public forum where both scientist & non-scientist stakeholders can reason with each other in a transparent way about what needs to be done to make research safer.
This cannot be an issue that is decided by just scientists in relevant fields.
This cannot be an issue that is decided by just scientists in relevant fields.
To paraphrase experts who have dedicated years to warning against a lab-based outbreak, the outcomes of a lab escape do not affect only scientists but everyone in society.
Conversely, scientists do not have magical immunity against pandemics. We should fear a lab-based pandemic.
Conversely, scientists do not have magical immunity against pandemics. We should fear a lab-based pandemic.
If we are rightly making efforts to prevent natural spillover, why not also make efforts to prevent lab-based outbreaks?
Why do we need confirmation that Covid-19 came from a lab to be sufficiently motivated to protect against unnecessary loss of life?
Why do we need confirmation that Covid-19 came from a lab to be sufficiently motivated to protect against unnecessary loss of life?
Some scientists are asking: how can we establish an international body and mechanism to surveil and regulate risky pathogen research?
It was an agenda item at this year's World Health Assembly, but there's no authority that can enforce biosafety globally.
apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_f…
It was an agenda item at this year's World Health Assembly, but there's no authority that can enforce biosafety globally.
apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_f…
What can be done is regulation and a cultural shift within one's own country. The US still plays a leadership role and many countries look to the US to set the tone of their own research directions and policies.
These efforts for safer, responsible research should start locally.
These efforts for safer, responsible research should start locally.
If another country wants to become a consistent source of lab-based outbreaks, devastating their own communities, we can't do anything about that besides being a role model for not doing that to our own country and citizens.
In the US, there were, on average, more than 4 accidental releases per week (not necessarily leading to infections) of select agents in 2019. However, many animal/human pathogens, e.g., MERS, are not considered select agents.
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1407374404171046913
There also seems to be no mandatory reporting of lab-acquired infections, regardless of pathogen or BSL, in the US.
This means we don't know how many research personnel are infected each year while conducting research activities, and if non-research staff are getting infected.
This means we don't know how many research personnel are infected each year while conducting research activities, and if non-research staff are getting infected.
It is difficult to find many virologists/infectious diseases experts who consider research a plausible source of outbreaks & call for regulation of their own field in response to pandemics. It's difficult for them to suddenly see their lifesaving work as a potential risk to life.
I'm not saying they're evil - just human.
It's very hard to remove biases even when you're aware of them. It's the way you perceive and think about the world and how it works.
If you've spent years fighting natural spillover, almost every outbreak looks natural by default.
It's very hard to remove biases even when you're aware of them. It's the way you perceive and think about the world and how it works.
If you've spent years fighting natural spillover, almost every outbreak looks natural by default.
To end the 🧵 I ask the organizers of the petition letter to please reconsider the consequences of publishing your letter + signatories.
How will the public perceive the letter? What will happen in the event of a lab-based outbreak? Will your letter undermine trust in science?
How will the public perceive the letter? What will happen in the event of a lab-based outbreak? Will your letter undermine trust in science?
One more tweet. People are asking if the petition letter exists. Yes, I’ve read it and taken screenshots of it. I can also share it with journalists who I think can be responsible and not put the organizers of the letter in danger of threats.
https://twitter.com/ayjchan/status/1413872105855217681
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
