5 ms·
No, it doesn't. It will only fuel anti-science sentiment all over the world and put scientists under scrutiny and attacks. We need more science, not more scie
by ghyiihdruh 5y ago
No, it doesn't.
It will only fuel anti-science sentiment all over the world and put scientists under scrutiny and attacks.
We need more science, not more science attacks.
It will also vindicate Trump like anti-scientists just when we need more science to tackle climate change, inequality, gender gap, and yes, search for viruses with pandemic risk due to human encroachment on wild life so we can be ready for them.
Any sort of lab leak confirmation will basically destroy the science of virology just when we need it most.
Just look at what Fukushima did to nuclear energy acceptance. Now more people die of coal burning radioactivity than ever died because of nuclear energy one. Do we really want to do the same with virology and molecular engineering, which are life saving sciences?
- sullyj3 5y agoI hate to be be the one to tell you this, (just kidding, I get a little sadistic thrill out of it) but if you think the best way to defend science is to shy away from searching for truth, you may possibly have missed the entire point of the enterprise.
- ramblerman 5y agoSeeking objective truth is precisely scientific. Science doesn't care if the result could be construed to be pro or anti Trump. You are speaking about science as if it is religion.
- ghyiihdruh 5y agoScientists need to consider the political impact of their findings. If it will only be used to bring harm in the world it's irresponsible to share it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ramblerman 5y agoPlacing what you morally or politically desire to be true over the objective truth is religious dogma. You argument is exactly the same one the Church used to prevent Copernicus's idea that the earth rotated around the sun.
- luckylion 5y agoShould judges do the same?
- BoxOfRain 5y agoExactly, science is a process rather than a priesthood and we forget that at our peril.
- chucke 5y agoSo, covering up science fuck ups is legimitate because it protects science, and we need science to promote other agendas to promote other dodgy agendas which are scientifically still unproven or unprovable (I don't know how science can even explain gender gap...)?
- blitzar 5y agoPossibly the scariest thing I see at the moment; 'we can't say/do that as it will give fuel to the anti-vaxers'. Antivaxers will just make shit up - properly exploring the science is not strengthening their argument, refusing to do so is strengthening their argument.
- xupybd 5y agoI'm pro vax. I think this vaccine is worth the risk but this is the highest risk vaccine we've had in a long time and that part of the equation is getting swept under the rug.
- blitzar 5y agoBeing labeled as anit-vax for this sort of thought is rather awkward. This should not be controversial at all, especially how moderate this is vs the 5g brain control something that this sweeping under the rug is trying to counter.
- halfjoking 5y agoWhat’s crazy to me is there’s still no inactive virus, normal vaccine option in the Western world. Ok - if you’re going to ban me from restaurants, gyms and events, if you’re going to make me lose my job… but I’m willing to take a normal vaccine like Sinopharm why not just approve that? Why not let me import that vaccine for $10k so I could save my job? Or even better let me prove I have better protection than vaccinated because I had prior infection. That proof is also meaningless because the vaccine is somehow magical - even though there are a ton of breakthrough cases and boosters will be needed after 8 months. Give people alternatives if they don’t trust RNA. Is that too much to ask? Apparently yes it is - to whoever really runs the US Gov.
- IAmGraydon 5y agoWow. This is perhaps the most foolish reply I’ve seen on HN in months. Yes, let’s just bury our heads in the sand so we can learn nothing from our mistakes. Unbelievable.
- quetzlbazaar 5y agoWhat probability do you give to the virus having escaped from a lab? If you were confident that this was not the case and that a proper investigation would show this, would you feel differently about whether there should be a proper investigation or not?