The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis Made It Harder for Scientists to Seek the Truth
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-hypothesis-made-it-harder-for-scientists-to-seek-the-truth/
6 comments
The article didn't downright dismiss it. In fact the author took pains to mention that conspiratorial thinking, of which it lists many non-fringe examples, slows down legitimate inquiry into the dangers of gain of function research.
If you care about whether or not the virus is zoonotic in origin that takes time. It still hasn't been done for ebola. In the meantime saying we think it's China let's investigate China specifically is looking for data in support of a hypothesis and not the other way around.
If you care about whether or not the virus is zoonotic in origin that takes time. It still hasn't been done for ebola. In the meantime saying we think it's China let's investigate China specifically is looking for data in support of a hypothesis and not the other way around.
The premise that additional hypotheses cause problems is against the basic idea of science.
From the article:
"Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric."
The idea that hypotheses can waste time is not against the basic idea of science. Especially when you can just move the goal posts, like with RaTG13 which was allegedly the engineered precursor until scientists proved it diverged from a common ancestor with COVID-19 anywhere from 40-70 years ago. Then the theory was that scientists engineered RaTG13 so it would merely look like they had diverged in that way.
A lab leak hypothesis is within the realm of possibility. A lot of things are. What we choose to focus on also tells us a lot about what we choose to not take into account. One thing a lot of people didn't take into account is researchers could graph the uptick in crime against Asian Americans starting from the first #ChinaVirus tweet from President Trump.
This isn't getting into the fact that we still haven't, for example, conclusively shown Ebola comes from a zoonotic reservoir. Weird how in 2013-2016 our relationship with China wasn't what it is today and nobody accused a country of bioengineering coronaviruses until white people got impacted by them.
"Ironically the xenophobic instrumentalization of the lab-leak hypothesis may have made it harder for reasonable scientific voices to suggest and explore theories because so much time and effort has gone into containing the fallout from conspiratorial rhetoric."
The idea that hypotheses can waste time is not against the basic idea of science. Especially when you can just move the goal posts, like with RaTG13 which was allegedly the engineered precursor until scientists proved it diverged from a common ancestor with COVID-19 anywhere from 40-70 years ago. Then the theory was that scientists engineered RaTG13 so it would merely look like they had diverged in that way.
A lab leak hypothesis is within the realm of possibility. A lot of things are. What we choose to focus on also tells us a lot about what we choose to not take into account. One thing a lot of people didn't take into account is researchers could graph the uptick in crime against Asian Americans starting from the first #ChinaVirus tweet from President Trump.
This isn't getting into the fact that we still haven't, for example, conclusively shown Ebola comes from a zoonotic reservoir. Weird how in 2013-2016 our relationship with China wasn't what it is today and nobody accused a country of bioengineering coronaviruses until white people got impacted by them.
We need to discuss the continuing decadence of The Scientific American magazine.
Ignoring possible hypothesis makes it harder to find the truth especially when they are true
Considering the natural origin hypothesis hasn’t been proven yet, mixing up skeptics with conspi nuts feels disingenuous, rhetorically targeting emotions and identity. I don’t think there is a huge overlap with those considering gain of function research as possible origin, with your typical death-by-5G, antivax flatearther, or climate denialist. Downright dismissing a lab origin, when really both ways are completely possible, feels patronizing and not scientific at all. I also don’t think someone who thinks about the FCS is likely to shoot a researcher on their way home. Or listens to Trumps bullshit, for that matter.
Not everyone thinks SARS2 is a bio weapon designed by Bill Gates. To me however, the mere possibility of a lab origin influences my opinion on gain of function research and legislation, and that should be the real discourse here IMO. Attributing this to China really is beside the point and realistically “impossible knowledge“ considering the extent of a possible liability issue at hand, anyway. The xenophobic attacks started right from the start, when Trump rallied against “the China virus” instead of taking action against its spread. No one, but Biontech and virologists were concerned about the genome of the virus back then.