I was surprised to hear that some scientists don't think the pandemic has given us reason to revisit risky pathogen research regulation.
The pandemic has highlighted the responsibility of scientists with influence to prevent the next pandemic, whether natural or lab-based.
The pandemic has highlighted the responsibility of scientists with influence to prevent the next pandemic, whether natural or lab-based.
This responsibility to prevent large scale loss of life from research-related accidents is being neglected.
If virologists are tired of being painted as reckless cowboys, maybe they should stop their own colleagues from behaving like reckless cowboys?
If virologists are tired of being painted as reckless cowboys, maybe they should stop their own colleagues from behaving like reckless cowboys?
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1492327144621551619
I don't feel particularly confident about the new review convened by NIH after listening to their recent call. It is not clear to me how that process will draw in diverse viewpoints on this issue and give weight to the judgments of non-scientist experts.
https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1499035660627419139
If we keep following this trajectory of globally proliferating risky pathogen research, driven by an arms race mentality, with minimal oversight, transparency or accountability, we're going to find ourselves in more outbreaks and pandemics of ambiguous origin.
As a scientist, I want to protect science, but the question has to be asked, who are we protecting the science for?
Isn't it for everyone living on this planet?
Isn't it for everyone living on this planet?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
