Both natural & lab #OriginOfCovid hypotheses are plausible & must be credibly investigated.
It's normal for people to argue which is more likely, but we don't have the data to know.
It's not ok for experts to report near certainty or dispositive evidence when there is none.
We have no sign of a SARS2 precursor whether in a market or in a lab.
We know there was a Dec 2019 cluster of cases at a market where potential animal hosts were sold.
We know there is a Wuhan lab doing precisely the type of work that could've caused the emergence of SARS2.
Without access to data about cases in November or early December 2019, we don't know how the market cluster occurred.
There is no animal version of the virus at the market, no sign of an animal host or infected supply chain.
These should be investigated but not assumed.
Similarly, without access to data/info about the type of viruses being studied in Wuhan, we don't know if SARS2 escaped from a lab or not.
This should be investigated but not assumed.
No one can claim dispositive evidence for either hypothesis based on current public knowledge.
Something's wrong if science gets to be decided by the side that is more willing (& well connected) to confidently claim "dispositive evidence" while key data is still missing.
I'm not willing to cross that line until there is actually dispositive evidence for either hypothesis.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Video is up for a recent (Feb 28, 2022) National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) public review of US government policies on dual use research of concern (DURC) and research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP/P3CO). videocast.nih.gov/watch=44823
Having listened to this, I'm worried that some of the experts on the call are more concerned that the US might lose its competitive edge internationally than that some of this research might kill millions whether by accidental or deliberate release.
There's good acknowledgement of the difficulty of balancing security vs research advances, challenges of knowing what is happening in labs even in the US, & the value of engaging non-scientist stakeholders (I think this is very important; non-scientist views should have weight).
To facilitate discussion, here it is, the text in their preprint that says they can't verify the data, don't have key data, but believe their analysis is robust.
It's important to remember that a single individual can get some things right and other things really wrong.
For example, some scientists & journalists are fantastic at precisely explaining new variants and vaccine efficacy, but somehow terrible on the topic of #OriginOfCovid
It's tempting to assume the rest of their research or reporting might be similarly poor, but I know that these scientists and journalists are generally doing an incredible job in other areas. I just wish that they would apply similar standards of rigor to #OriginOfCovid
I'm really sure that, most of the time, these scientists and journalists are aware that you need to have complete data before making confident assertions.
Imagine if the same approach was applied to clinical trials of covid-19 vaccines. "We don't know if the data is authentic. We don't have the full data. But we're sure our analysis is robust."
Should science journalists be seeking out scientists who were convinced by the paper?
The coverage of the newest preprints by the Proximal Origin authors and friends must be breaking some kind of record.
Has anyone else heard of preprints being featured on @nytimes front-page news? Not to mention at the same time as a war is starting. nytimes.com/interactive/20…
Glad to see that many of the @nytimes subscribers who commented on the article have solid critical thinking abilities.
To quote one of them:
"I wish @carlzimmer had taken the time to do more research before writing this article."
@nytimes@carlzimmer It's great that this @nytimes front-page news article is being proactively archived at different times to show its evolution as @carlzimmer appears to be reading the work and updating his article with figures and pictures from the preprints. archive.fo/https://www.ny…
My stance on some controversial hypotheses being floated:
1. RaTG13 is not the parent of SARS-CoV-2. 2. Omicron most likely evolved naturally. 3. The SARS2 furin cleavage site did not come from a Moderna patent and 4. It did not come from the human ENaC protein.
Importantly, none of the above need to be true in order for the #OriginOfCovid to be lab-related or to have involved genetic engineering.
I don't understand why some people are making the issue so weird and complicated.
By their own grant documents and research publications, the scientists were engaged in the type of virus discovery and manipulation research that could've plausibly led to the emergence of SARS2.
No need for any Moderna, ENaC protein, RaTG13 shenanigans.