... in my medium post arguing that we should be asking for data/info instead of guessing in the absence of evidence. ayjchan.medium.com/a-response-to-…
@ScienceMagazine One of the last defenses of natural originists is that there is no way RaTG13 could've transformed into SARS2.
That's not what most people asking for an investigation into lab origins are claiming. Let's just discard of that straw man and deal with this:
“The real question is whether or not research has the potential to create or facilitate the selection of viruses that might infect humans.” theintercept.com/2021/09/09/cov…
“All but two of the scientists consulted agreed that, whatever title it is given, the newly public experiment raised serious concerns about the safety and oversight of federally funded research.”
Although the study describing 4991/RaTG13 for the first time and Latinne et al.’s paper were described as having been funded by the EHA grant, I didn’t see even a glimpse of the 9 Mojiang mine SARSrCoVs throughout the 900+ pages of text, phylogenetic trees and other figures.
@fastlerner@MaraHvistendahl@theintercept “they actually point out that they know how risky this work is. They keep talking about people potentially getting bitten—and they kept records of everyone who got bitten. Does EcoHealth have those records? And if not, how can they possibly rule out a research-related accident?”
"There are compelling reasons to expect that the frequency [of outbreaks] will increase.. laboratories around the world handling dangerous pathogens is growing in part as a response to increasing pandemic risk, boosting the likelihood that a contagious pathogen could be released"
The old ways by which infectious diseases emerge have not suddenly disappeared. As the plan notes, there are now increased zoonotic transmissions from animals driven by human population growth, climate change & habitat loss.
But there are also new ways: lab release, bioweapons.
Going up against experts who believe in a natural origin is tough because their field expertise & seniority are often enough to convince non-scientists of a particular argument.
Many who can’t understand the science put their trust in established experts. This is reasonable.
But what’s even tougher is dealing with the small anti-science crowd that believes in a lab origin and is out to get scientists. As a result even true experts who want an investigation of lab origins are painted with a broad brush as unscientific or even responsible for violence.
If you see anonymous people attacking scientists, regardless of which side, I urge you to ask them to stop or report them. These attacks distract from the scientific issue at hand and make it more difficult to hold scientists and leaders accountable.
“Altos is luring university professors by offering sports-star salaries of $1 million a year or more, plus equity, as well as freedom from the hassle of applying for grants.”
If there’s this much money, please set up a department to reproduce key works in the aging field.
If you quickly show which research are reproducible, you will move the whole field forward by decades. That’s a guaranteed way to save scientists from wasting time chasing deadends.
Non-scientists have no idea how much 🧠⏳💸 (100s of mil) are wasted, redundantly, by scientists worldwide each trying to reproduce top publications.
I can’t think of a surer way to accelerate science than to rapidly reveal which studies are reproducible. vox.com/future-perfect…
Using covidcg.org to keep tabs on the Delta sublineages in North America.
Orange is AY.4, light blue is AY.3, pink is AY.12, dark blue is AY.25.
This is the cumulative % of sequences that are AY.4 in each country in North America over time (past 3 months). Visualized using the Compare Locations feature on covidcg.org