5 ms·
Check out this prescient article from 2017, when the ban was lifted: Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and s
by missinfo 5y ago
Check out this prescient article from 2017, when the ban was lifted:
Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic...
Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, called review panels “a small step forward.”
Recent disease-enhancing experiments, he said, “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics, and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic.”
Therefore, he said, he hoped the panels would turn down such work.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih...
- tootie 5y agoPrescient how? This article is about a rejected proposal. Not only did the research not happen, we have no reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.
- echelon 5y agoThere's more evidence for this type or research happening where the pandemic arose than there is for natural origin.
- tootie 5y agoThere's some evidence this kind of research happens. There's not really evidence it was happening in Wuhan nor evidence that the virus we have is the result of experimentation. Historically lab leaks are vanishingly rare and acquisition from animals is extremely common. For lab leak to be even a plausible story the evidence would have to be very strong and it is nowhere near convincing right now.
- TheTester 5y agoLab leaks are not rare the actual thing is that lab leaks that turn into pandemics are an anomaly but only because pandemics are an anomaly statistically speaking
- willupowers 5y agoLooks like a pretty probable lead to me to continue investigating, especially since this leak evidence directly conflicts with many previous statements from Daszak and associates.
- tootie 5y agoContinue investigating what though? The research this team has done is all public knowledge. A rejected proposal doesn't shed much light. Lab leak remains remotely possible, but not supported by any direct evidence. Meanwhile, evidence for animal source is getting stronger: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02519-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02519-1
- willupowers 5y agoThe USA might need to come out and say "we were working on a vaccine with Wuhan." EHA and WIV might need to say "we had an oopsies." I doubt China will admit anything though. So this is the circus we must deal with until people wake up and demand for answers.
- echelon 5y agoExactly. The evidence for this scenario is incredibly compelling and it deserves more investigation. I haven't seen any refutations of these claims apart from "those involved say no". There's a nonzero chance that these people are lying to cover things up or protect their reputations. Millions of deaths being attributed to a lab accident would be pretty damning. Why do people on HN want this to not be the case? (As evidenced by all the downvotes?) The truth could be anything, and we should be looking for it. This is one possibility that carries a lot of weight and demands our attention. There's nothing wrong in stating that the evidence is substantial and that we should investigate more. Why put your head in the sand? This isn't anti-science.
- rhacker 5y agoA rejected proposal does not mean research does not happen. It means they were unable to get funding from DARPA. It does not necessarily mean they were unable to get funding from "somebody". And yes we do have reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.
- lolwut8374 5y agoSo, who did they get funding from, if not one of the only bodies in the world capable of funding this kind of work? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t. You can tell that by looking at what they did work on next. Did you look? Like it says in the article.
- willupowers 5y agoWe already know the NIH partially funded field survey work that appears to be very similar to this. It's pretty obvious to see that they continued applying elsewhere and may have been successful in getting the funding the requested. It just might be from several grants.
- lolwut8374 5y agoRight, did you look at the publication records of the academics involved? When you beg for grants you have to publish to show you’re good for the next one. This isn’t a mystery. It’s literally right there, published for your subscriber access.
- jmvoodoo 5y agoIf you were doing research that led to a global pandemic that killed millions of people, would you then publish your results? I have a feeling that might not have the effect of showing you're "good for the next one." Obviously the lack of evidence isn't proof that this happened, but I also don't think it's safe to say that it's proof it didn't.
- avs733 5y ago
- teh_klev 5y agoI don't want to diminish the work of "epidemiologist"'s but they aren't virologists. They're ultimately specialised statisticians and shouldn't have any say in how or what research is carried out.
- djenendik 5y agoOnly a virologist should tell another virologist what to do. Got it.
- teh_klev 5y agoNope, a panel of virologists and related researchers with the same scientific understanding in the field should make these decisions.
- djenendik 5y agoIt's ok to have wishful thinking. Plenty of grants include virologists and epidemiologists, so your proposal isn't practical.
- teh_klev 5y agoSure, they could provide anecdotal input based on past outbreaks, but they don't have the biological expertise to decide solely on what research should or could be carried out.
- mkhpalm 5y agoNIH had been funding grants for spillover risk with Eco Health Alliance / Daszak since 2014. https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304 https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9819304
- spywaregorilla 5y agoIs it supposed to ironic posting stuff like this under a new account with this name?