It's extraordinary that the Editor-in-Chief of @sciencemagazine, @hholdenthorp, would write such a biased editorial about a legitimate scientific debate, and one that would show either ignorance of facts, dishonesty about facts, or both. #coronavirus science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
To continue to refer to those who are not satisfied with the natural origins hypothesis for Covid-19 origins, who include leading scientists and science journaists, as "conspiracy theorists" is truly slanderous and not at all in the scientific spirit.
To state that the "virus is almost certainly of zoonotic origin" is to state something that is not scientifically demonstrated, and to pretend evidence exists that does not. Neither hypothesis has any kind of smoking gun evidence behind it.
To refer to demonstrably deliberate attempts to hide information as "miscues" and "missteps" on the part of scientists and some officials is an inaccurate and biased statement of what has actually happened.
To state that the experiments proposed by Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance "were not conducted" is to go beyond any knowledge that Thorp has or could possibly have.
Perhaps the worst aspect of this editorial is that it demonstrates the Editor-in-Chief of Science is simply out of touch with the current state of play of this debate. Thus he ends up being a propagandist for one side of an argument that we clearly need to get right.
A personal note: I worked for @sciencemagazine for 25 yrs, most of that as the Paris correspondent. I retain respect for the magazine and especially for my former colleagues, excellent journalists even if at times I think they get it wrong. A piece like this is not worthy...
of a publication that has done so many good things and continues to provide a model for serious science #journalism. It is really an abomination.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
