A new #OriginOfCovid pre-print claims that the SARS-CoV-2 genome has fingerprints indicating synthetic origin.
It's been called both "uninformed nonsense" and "the smoking gun".
How is that possible? What are people even arguing about?
🧵w/ simplified overview for the curious
It's been called both "uninformed nonsense" and "the smoking gun".
How is that possible? What are people even arguing about?
🧵w/ simplified overview for the curious
The paper in 1 tweet: examines a type of restriction site on the COVID genome. These sites occur in nature but can also result from certain cut+paste genome assembly. In COVID the location of the sites are more even-spaced & less random you'd expect naturally. Looks synthetic.
IMO
The paper is important, even if wrong/incorrect.
The restriction site analysis is novel and should be studied further.
The statistical pieces may not be robust/hold up to reanalysis.
There is honest debate to be had.
So, how has twitter reacted to the news?
The paper is important, even if wrong/incorrect.
The restriction site analysis is novel and should be studied further.
The statistical pieces may not be robust/hold up to reanalysis.
There is honest debate to be had.
So, how has twitter reacted to the news?
Reactions from prominent scientists have included:
- rt + uncritical admiration
- reflexive dismissal interspersed with childish insults
- "uproarious laughter"
- implications of fraud
- tweeting in support, then deleting their 150k follower account
But little fair engagement.
- rt + uncritical admiration
- reflexive dismissal interspersed with childish insults
- "uproarious laughter"
- implications of fraud
- tweeting in support, then deleting their 150k follower account
But little fair engagement.
Most baffling is the behavior of the mainstream experts.
They attack journos, block other scientists, and amplify debunkings that misinterpret the paper's central point.
They equivocate on lab work while lacking recent practical experience outside lab mgmt & grant writing.
They attack journos, block other scientists, and amplify debunkings that misinterpret the paper's central point.
They equivocate on lab work while lacking recent practical experience outside lab mgmt & grant writing.
However, if you look past the grandstanding, there is some legitimate criticism of the paper.
These ongoing debates fall into 4 categories...
These ongoing debates fall into 4 categories...
1) Statistical
Did they properly control for multiple comparisons when selecting BsaI/BsmBI?
Is the simulated "wild type distribution" of fragment lengths representative?
Should it inc more real samples?
Does it hold up if you include a test set?
Additional analysis is needed.
Did they properly control for multiple comparisons when selecting BsaI/BsmBI?
Is the simulated "wild type distribution" of fragment lengths representative?
Should it inc more real samples?
Does it hold up if you include a test set?
Additional analysis is needed.
2) Restriction Sites
Is the paper invalid b/c a less complicated "normal way" of assembly is seamless (which lacks these sites)?
Or do researchers intentionally leave RS in as a practical matter b/c it makes running many experiments more efficient?
Did WIV/UNC ever do this?
Is the paper invalid b/c a less complicated "normal way" of assembly is seamless (which lacks these sites)?
Or do researchers intentionally leave RS in as a practical matter b/c it makes running many experiments more efficient?
Did WIV/UNC ever do this?
3) Ancestral
A reconstructed common ancestor (recCA) shares all 5 restriction sites, which if real would invalidate the claims.
Assuming we set aside the preprint authors' criticism of the recCA paper validity, is it even valid to use this comparison or is it self-referential?
A reconstructed common ancestor (recCA) shares all 5 restriction sites, which if real would invalidate the claims.
Assuming we set aside the preprint authors' criticism of the recCA paper validity, is it even valid to use this comparison or is it self-referential?
4) Golden Gate
Does the paper's mistaken reference to Golden Gate matter? Or is it just mistaken terminology of a similar process that doesn't change outcomes?
Does the paper's mistaken reference to Golden Gate matter? Or is it just mistaken terminology of a similar process that doesn't change outcomes?
I had originally planed to provide links to the most relevant threads. But I decided against it because the discussions are too heated.
I'd rather just provide people with the general story. The paper is important, imperfect, & has raised some q's that merit serious discussion.
I'd rather just provide people with the general story. The paper is important, imperfect, & has raised some q's that merit serious discussion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
