5 ms·

The results of any inquiry are most likely to be inconclusive. What (if anything) is really at stake here?

by germinalphrase 5y ago

Natsu 5y ago
Future regulation of such research, mostly.
- patrickmclaren 5y ago
  Agree. In this regard, think about how procedures changed following Chernobyl, or consider how the various "Broken Arrow" events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear_incident_terminology#Broken_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear...) have influence nuclear policy.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Another incident to consider is the previous "biological Chernobyl" from 1979, which involved a (drum roll) lab leak of Anthrax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak). Incidentally, all investigation was blocked in that incident, and the government denied culpability until Boris Yeltsin came into power and admitted that it was caused by military development (of biological weapons). The lack of accountability and transparency with the international community in that incident is part of why Russia was able to get away with continued work on anthrax-based biological weapons even after this incident. It's also why we need to bring greater scrutiny to what happened here with SARS-CoV-2, instead of pushing it under the rug - these leaks are more damaging than nuclear weapons and need the same kinds of controls.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Except it doesn't really matter if it actually came from a lab. It clearly could have so it's a possibility for future research too. It isn't even more likely to happen if this was a lab leak.
allears 5y ago
Which just points out that the issue is more political than scientific.
- giantg2 5y ago
  100% this ^. Scientific results are very commonly misapplied in political arguments. Politicians often find scary numbers to push whatever policy they already believe is best. I often hear them throw out numbers or scientific results and think "is that number connected to the policy, or are they jumping to conclusions, or did the completely misapply the data".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sklearncowboy 5y ago
  How can wanting to know the origins of this pandemic not be scientific? The idea of not wanting to know is just bizarre to me. I feel like people are so wrapped up in the political sport/game that it is almost like people who lean Democrat don't want to investigate this further because they don't want the Republicans who questioned this at the start to look good if it did happen to come from a lab. As if you can only lose from further investigation. As someone who doesn't really care for either party, that is a completely insane. To say it will be inconclusive so why bother, again, a bizarre line of thinking to me.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    I also don't care for either party, but also don't really care where the virus originated. Both possibilities seem plausible, and rather than waste time figuring out which one was responsible we should try to limit the possibility of either happening in the future.
    - tengbretson 5y ago
      You don't think there's anything we could possibly learn that would help inform us on how to operate labs and what sort of things are safe to study going forward? I don't believe that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwawaysea 5y ago
We are left in an inconclusive grey area because of non cooperation. I think part of the challenge is holding the Chinese government accountable for suppressing reporting, delaying a site visit, deleting information, and interfering with a transparent independent process by requiring review/approval of the WHO report. I am frankly in favor of assuming a lab leak in the absence of explicit evidence just because my estimation of likelihood points in that direction, and even more so given the obstruction of transparency so far. The WHO and NIH also deserve scrutiny. And the press and social media companies for censoring discussions that could have pushed for transparency and investigations sooner. Accountability will help us handle future situations better, and will help us get back to valuing civil discourse and freedom of expression. Beyond that, what’s at stake is safety from dangerous research. Maybe that means a ban on gain of function work, or updated protocols, or independent audits of BSL labs by an international team like we have for nuclear controls. Just a week ago Nate Silver of 538 wrote (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1398678561599508480 https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1398678561599508480), "it seems very warped that a bunch of prominent scientists are saying we shouldn't investigate the claims for reasons that have little to do with science and lots to do with politics". This author it seems, is one of those pushing this warped position.
totetsu 5y ago
I think what is at stake if the future of consensus on truth. Its easy to accept that in this case we will never know for sure what happened.. but how damaging is it to peoples sense of trust in society, that even with an issue that has such existential risk as a pandemic, will never be openly investigated to the point that there could be a consensus about it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
infamouscow 5y ago
Everyone on Earth has had their lives upended over this virus. I think we're obligated to understand everything we can about it's origins (regardless of source) so as to help prevent it from happening again.
- aliasEli 5y ago
  By far the most likely cause for the next pandemic is transmission from animals. By just focusing on labs you do not do anything substantial to prevent that pandemic.

The results of any inquiry are most likely to be inconclusive. What (if anything) is really at stake here?

Natsu 5y ago

Future regulation of such research, mostly.

patrickmclaren 5y ago
Agree. In this regard, think about how procedures changed following Chernobyl, or consider how the various "Broken Arrow" events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear_incident_terminology#Broken_Arrow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_nuclear...) have influence nuclear policy.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Another incident to consider is the previous "biological Chernobyl" from 1979, which involved a (drum roll) lab leak of Anthrax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak). Incidentally, all investigation was blocked in that incident, and the government denied culpability until Boris Yeltsin came into power and admitted that it was caused by military development (of biological weapons). The lack of accountability and transparency with the international community in that incident is part of why Russia was able to get away with continued work on anthrax-based biological weapons even after this incident. It's also why we need to bring greater scrutiny to what happened here with SARS-CoV-2, instead of pushing it under the rug - these leaks are more damaging than nuclear weapons and need the same kinds of controls.
akvadrako 5y ago
Except it doesn't really matter if it actually came from a lab. It clearly could have so it's a possibility for future research too. It isn't even more likely to happen if this was a lab leak.

allears 5y ago

Which just points out that the issue is more political than scientific.

giantg2 5y ago
100% this ^. Scientific results are very commonly misapplied in political arguments. Politicians often find scary numbers to push whatever policy they already believe is best. I often hear them throw out numbers or scientific results and think "is that number connected to the policy, or are they jumping to conclusions, or did the completely misapply the data".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sklearncowboy 5y ago
How can wanting to know the origins of this pandemic not be scientific? The idea of not wanting to know is just bizarre to me. I feel like people are so wrapped up in the political sport/game that it is almost like people who lean Democrat don't want to investigate this further because they don't want the Republicans who questioned this at the start to look good if it did happen to come from a lab. As if you can only lose from further investigation. As someone who doesn't really care for either party, that is a completely insane. To say it will be inconclusive so why bother, again, a bizarre line of thinking to me.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  I also don't care for either party, but also don't really care where the virus originated. Both possibilities seem plausible, and rather than waste time figuring out which one was responsible we should try to limit the possibility of either happening in the future.
  - tengbretson 5y ago
    You don't think there's anything we could possibly learn that would help inform us on how to operate labs and what sort of things are safe to study going forward? I don't believe that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwawaysea 5y ago

We are left in an inconclusive grey area because of non cooperation. I think part of the challenge is holding the Chinese government accountable for suppressing reporting, delaying a site visit, deleting information, and interfering with a transparent independent process by requiring review/approval of the WHO report. I am frankly in favor of assuming a lab leak in the absence of explicit evidence just because my estimation of likelihood points in that direction, and even more so given the obstruction of transparency so far. The WHO and NIH also deserve scrutiny. And the press and social media companies for censoring discussions that could have pushed for transparency and investigations sooner. Accountability will help us handle future situations better, and will help us get back to valuing civil discourse and freedom of expression. Beyond that, what’s at stake is safety from dangerous research. Maybe that means a ban on gain of function work, or updated protocols, or independent audits of BSL labs by an international team like we have for nuclear controls. Just a week ago Nate Silver of 538 wrote (https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1398678561599508480 https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1398678561599508480), "it seems very warped that a bunch of prominent scientists are saying we shouldn't investigate the claims for reasons that have little to do with science and lots to do with politics". This author it seems, is one of those pushing this warped position.

totetsu 5y ago

I think what is at stake if the future of consensus on truth. Its easy to accept that in this case we will never know for sure what happened.. but how damaging is it to peoples sense of trust in society, that even with an issue that has such existential risk as a pandemic, will never be openly investigated to the point that there could be a consensus about it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

infamouscow 5y ago

Everyone on Earth has had their lives upended over this virus. I think we're obligated to understand everything we can about it's origins (regardless of source) so as to help prevent it from happening again.

aliasEli 5y ago
By far the most likely cause for the next pandemic is transmission from animals. By just focusing on labs you do not do anything substantial to prevent that pandemic.