An interesting aspect of the evolution of the lab leak theory is the unhealthy relation of mainstream media to scientific research. When the Andersen paper came out conflating the lab leak theory with the crazy bioweapon theory and lumping both as conspiracy theories, all mainstream medias jumped on this and used it for several month to quash discussion of the lab leak theory. The most vocal were the "science correspondents" and "decoders". I suspect this is because it's the kind of people that are sufficiently interested in science to have a healthy respect for it, but not sufficiently involved in science to have the healthy skepticism towards published papers. People that do publish and review scientific papers are well aware that published papers are just additional evidence for a theory, not a golden source of truth, but that seems largely lost on mainstream media. Especially when they can use it as anti-Trump material. For anyone interested in a balanced scientific view on the lab leak theory, Alina Chan on twitter is amazing.
The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
111–120 of 267 posts
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#112Much of the article reminds me of the description of how NASA ended up launching a shuttle in temperatures far below what they originally would have allowed. You walk just past the line, nothing bad happens, so you move the line a bit. You walk just past that line, nothing bad happens...and this repeats until, inevitably, eventually, something bad happens. Regardless of whether or not this pandemic came from this lab…
I like the term "normalization of deviance" and would recommand the Mike Mullane's talk on the Challenger disaster [1].
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#113Much of the article reminds me of the description of how NASA ended up launching a shuttle in temperatures far below what they originally would have allowed. You walk just past the line, nothing bad happens, so you move the line a bit. You walk just past that line, nothing bad happens...and this repeats until, inevitably, eventually, something bad happens. Regardless of whether or not this pandemic came from this lab…
This sort of work should absolutely get more difficult for western scientists too. We’ve had several lab leaks that through luck didn’t turn in to pandemics. Certainly the costs of auditing and complying with lab safety is far cheaper than a global pandemic.
> is far cheaper than a global pandemic
It’s hard to overstate the case here. Even a tiny chance for a proposed research project to causing something like covid 19 has a gigantic risk adjusted cost and should only have been undertaken if the expected results were likewise enormously beneficial.
Something seems off with the cost benefit analysis in these laboratories.
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#114https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-lab.h...
This is a pretty well reasoned take kn the lab leak hypothesis. We might not know for certain if covid came from the lab in Wuhan but there are enough lapses that took place in that lab that a future pandemic can start from that place
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah sadly he's gone off the deep end on "spike protein", but he has been a good fount on the origins of covid.
I'm curious what makes you think he's "gone off the deep end"?
bret and his brother eric have made a name for themselves as contrarians. right or wrong they will take a hot take on whatever hot topic is available and do the podcast and tweet tour with it, all the while screaming to their millions of listeners how they are being silenced.
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#116Much of the article reminds me of the description of how NASA ended up launching a shuttle in temperatures far below what they originally would have allowed. You walk just past the line, nothing bad happens, so you move the line a bit. You walk just past that line, nothing bad happens...and this repeats until, inevitably, eventually, something bad happens. Regardless of whether or not this pandemic came from this lab…
Does NASA have outside auditors with a highly adversarial relationship reviewing its launch procedures?
I don’t think it does.
I’m pretty sure NASA has an excellent internal team of quality control specialists. The specialists are a part of all aspects of deployment and launch.
They don’t just pop in and review work, they’re constantly there.
They’re also very much “part of the team.” They don’t strictly speaking “have teeth.” They’re focused on the same mission everyone else is, only with a special focus on making it happen safely.
Maybe you mean something like the relationship between the FAA and airline industry.
But that’s very different from how NASA operates.
So it’s clearly not the only model.
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah sadly he's gone off the deep end on "spike protein", but he has been a good fount on the origins of covid.
I'm curious what makes you think he's "gone off the deep end"?
His ivermectin stuff is pretty wild.
Also, he and his brother have (IMHO) quite obvious inferiority complexes about their academic careers. So much of what they both say boils down to how the academic system doesn't respect their intelligence, and implied is that they deserve it.
I mean, who doesn't feel that way about their field? But to speak at length on podcasts about it, which are only popular due to Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson, is pretty exhausting to me.
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of work should absolutely get more difficult for western scientists too. We’ve had several lab leaks that through luck didn’t turn in to pandemics. Certainly the costs of auditing and complying with lab safety is far cheaper than a global pandemic.
> is far cheaper than a global pandemic It’s hard to overstate the case here. Even a tiny chance for a proposed research project to causing something like covid 19 has a gigantic risk adjusted cost and should only have been undertaken if the expected results were likewise enormously beneficial. Something seems off with the cost benefit analysis in these laboratories.
Well sure but:
(1) this pandemic has not been shown to be caused by gain-of-function research and probably wasn't.
(2) why do you think scientists do gain-of-function research? It's to try and prevent pandemics by finding viruses which might be dangerous.
So if there's a problem it's really (3): we haven't consistently funded pandemic preparedness, in particular there needs to be an established process to clinical trial and test new vaccines against identified "risky" viral strains in the wild, ideally with a platform perspective that we can have confidence can be rapidly modified to get a new vaccine out the door.
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#119An interesting aspect of the evolution of the lab leak theory is the unhealthy relation of mainstream media to scientific research. When the Andersen paper came out conflating the lab leak theory with the crazy bioweapon theory and lumping both as conspiracy theories, all mainstream medias jumped on this and used it for several month to quash discussion of the lab leak theory. The most vocal were the "science corresp…
I second your recommendation of Alina Chan, as she has the scientific credentials, is careful with the science, and as you say is balanced in that she doesn't dismiss the natural origins hypothesis either. If people want to be informed about multiple perspectives of this debate, she is a must-follow.
That said, let me temper that with some skepticism. First, having got a book deal[1] she is now in the position of directly financially benefiting from media promotion, which in my opinion puts her in a slightly different category than a purely objective scientist.
Second, while she is careful that her words are always defensible and rooted in science, my interpretation of her (prolific) memes is that hell yeah, she thinks it's a lab leak. I want to emphasize that this is my interpretation; at worst, she can be accused of communicating ambiguously enough to create this interpretation in a cross-section of her audience. And a large fraction of her replies are people who are, shall we say, less scientifically careful.
Third, she has truncated quotes from her detractors in a way that changes their meaning, and I find this not entirely good faith. Here's the thread[2] that has that quote and Dr. Rasmussen's response. Perhaps this is an honest difference in interpretation, and Dr. Rasmussen is being too thin-skinned about it.
In any case, my goal here is to present evidence which I think might be relevant, and encourage people to look at it and decide for themselves. As I say, while for the reasons I cited above, I certainly wouldn't consider everything Dr. Chan says to be gospel and accept it uncritically, I absolutely agree that hers is a voice that should be heard. Much to her credit, she has been consistently calling for a real investigation for a long time, well before it was newly fashionable.
Re: The risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The whole thing needs to be looked at. Someone somewhere decided that the topic was taboo and needed to be purged from the internet, and then someone somewhere decided that it was ok that the tpoic gets to see the light of day. It's all quite sinister.
You realize the reason being that Facebook users jump from “virus was leaked from a lab in China” to beating up Chinese-looking people a bit too eagerly. This is why I’m not that much concerned about Facebook rules in this case. Getting expelled from scientific community for not sticking to the most convenient hypothesis is another matter, much more serious.
Not only that, but the originally deleted articles were about an intentionally created and released bioweapon, not an accidental lab leak.