3 ms·

The paper was published by four authors at "Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation". So I looked it up and found this: https://www.rolsociety.org/ https:

The paper was published by four authors at "Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation". So I looked it up and found this: https://www.rolsociety.org/ https://www.rolsociety.org/ Is the paper true? I am not qualified to pass judgement, but I'm not naive enough to see Steve Bannon is behind it and suspect this might be motivated by politics more than science.

jkhdigital 6y ago
The lead author is a Chinese MD/PhD trained in China who worked in a public health lab at Hong Kong University and has verifiable publication history. Based on a cursory reading it seems that all of the claims in the paper are based upon publicly-available research (over 100 citations) so there is no reason these claims cannot be evaluated through peer review.
D13Fd 6y ago
Some observations: - This is a paper published by members of an anti-China advocacy organization. - It advocates actions against China in its abstract ("Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories") - It includes a number of conspiratorial-sounding speculations ("However, this template virus ideally should not be one from Dr. Zengli Shi’s collections, considering that she is widely known to have been engaged in gain-of-function studies on coronaviruses. Therefore, . . . novel bat coronaviruses discovered and owned by military laboratories, would be suitable . . .") - Some of its citations appear suspect. For example, it cites a previous study for the idea that certain variants were "discovered and owned by military laboratories," but the cited study says nothing like that. - It criticizes "peer-reviewed" journals for rejecting its theories - It is in a highly-technical subject area that is difficult for lay people to understand In short, to me this looks like a piece of advocacy, not science. That's not to say that it might not also be right. But personally I would trust mainstream scientists publishing in established journals. Those scientists--as the paper itself notes--have so far not adopted this idea.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Trusting the "mainstream" and the "establishment" is historically a poor bet when it comes to science that is controversial by nature. Consider what a humanist scientist would want to believe to be true: - Nature bestowed yet another pathogen upon humanity or - Science caused an accident that killed a million people Even if it was a lab accident, it would be difficult to blame the whole of China for it. More likely, scientific work itself would be blamed, which could eradicate entire lines of research, threatening the livelihood and reputation of many scientists and lab workers. Though I am skeptical, I myself would like to believe the first scenario to be true. I might even be inclined to believe that misleading the public on it is the right thing to do, all potential consequences considered.

jkhdigital 6y ago

The lead author is a Chinese MD/PhD trained in China who worked in a public health lab at Hong Kong University and has verifiable publication history. Based on a cursory reading it seems that all of the claims in the paper are based upon publicly-available research (over 100 citations) so there is no reason these claims cannot be evaluated through peer review.

D13Fd 6y ago

Some observations: - This is a paper published by members of an anti-China advocacy organization. - It advocates actions against China in its abstract ("Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories") - It includes a number of conspiratorial-sounding speculations ("However, this template virus ideally should not be one from Dr. Zengli Shi’s collections, considering that she is widely known to have been engaged in gain-of-function studies on coronaviruses. Therefore, . . . novel bat coronaviruses discovered and owned by military laboratories, would be suitable . . .") - Some of its citations appear suspect. For example, it cites a previous study for the idea that certain variants were "discovered and owned by military laboratories," but the cited study says nothing like that. - It criticizes "peer-reviewed" journals for rejecting its theories - It is in a highly-technical subject area that is difficult for lay people to understand In short, to me this looks like a piece of advocacy, not science. That's not to say that it might not also be right. But personally I would trust mainstream scientists publishing in established journals. Those scientists--as the paper itself notes--have so far not adopted this idea.

gridlockd 6y ago
Trusting the "mainstream" and the "establishment" is historically a poor bet when it comes to science that is controversial by nature. Consider what a humanist scientist would want to believe to be true: - Nature bestowed yet another pathogen upon humanity or - Science caused an accident that killed a million people Even if it was a lab accident, it would be difficult to blame the whole of China for it. More likely, scientific work itself would be blamed, which could eradicate entire lines of research, threatening the livelihood and reputation of many scientists and lab workers. Though I am skeptical, I myself would like to believe the first scenario to be true. I might even be inclined to believe that misleading the public on it is the right thing to do, all potential consequences considered.