4 ms·
First, even genetically-engineered viruses (i.e., viruses whose nucleic acid sequence was directly manipulated by scientists) are genetically similar to natural
by tripletao 6y ago
First, even genetically-engineered viruses (i.e., viruses whose nucleic acid sequence was directly manipulated by scientists) are genetically similar to natural viruses--scientists lack the knowledge to design a viral genome entirely de novo, so such activity starts with one or more natural genomes. I believe other evidence makes such an origin for SARS-CoV-2 unlikely, but the existence of natural relatives means nothing.
Second, are you really saying that if we somehow later confirm that SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally-evolved virus sampled and accidentally released by the WIV, we should just shrug and do nothing? Even before the pandemic, there was a debate over whether deliberately seeking out novel pathogens (especially for gain-of-function experiments, but even just for collection and sequencing) brought sufficient benefit to justify the risk. If it turned out that such activity started a pandemic that killed millions of people, wouldn't it perhaps be worth revisiting that tradeoff?
- onethought 6y agoNo. I’m saying that it’s no different to the wet market. We should try to limit places where viruses can jump to humans. Wet markets are terrible, poorly run virus labs are terrible. The problem with the lab narrative is it’s being used to cast China as a kind of evil actor here. Where as I think irresponsible is there actually closer to the truth.
- tripletao 6y agoI agree with your comment above. If SARS-CoV-2 arose from a lab accident, then China might actually be less at fault in a certain sense--the WIV is potentially a lot closer to international standards for virological research than their wet markets or wildlife dealing are to international standards for agriculture.