4 ms·

All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way? Can you conclusively rule out that this virus wasn’t engineered (and then maliciously cov

All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way? Can you conclusively rule out that this virus wasn’t engineered (and then maliciously covered up) in a lab? The reason this approach is important is because the stakes here are higher. This means people who should have been careful weren’t, and are responsible for the death of millions and they’re happy continuing to cover up their part in it. The more important part here is an investigation on the origins of the virus is more about beurecracy than the actual science so unless you can conclusively prove that this virus could have never been engineered by a human you should stop bringing “improbability” of all of these processes as why we should trust these scientists.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Natural occurrence is how almost every known virus exists. Given that prior, "can you disprove the lab" is the Russell's Teapot hypothesis. No, I can't. I also can't disprove it rode in on a meteorite or was beamed in by aliens. And I'm not about to start.
- btmorex 5y ago
  We haven't had the technology to create novel viruses for very long so you statement is meaningless.
  - stablechaos 5y ago
    And the novel technology to create novel viruses was being actively developed in this lab. They've proudly and openly published results to this effect. Further, they were trying to get tens of millions in grant funding to develop the technology further.
passivate 5y ago
That is the wrong way to go about it. You have to approach it as you would in legal theory. Innocence is not something that is proven. The verdict is guilty or not guilty (which means evidence wasn't sufficient to convict, but that doesn't mean the defendant is innocent). In this case you have to prove that the virus was engineered by providing evidence. >All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way? What you're proposing isn't science and it isn't what 'real scientists' do.
- proc0 5y ago
  There's more than science here. This is also game theory, if a lab leak is still plausible. Why was this being researched? Who knew about it and why was it covered up, and to what extent was it covered up? Personally I think it's naive that people are omitting human and government intentions from all this, as if they are not actors in complex political world. These huge world changing events don't happen in a vacuum, and government actors are usually aware of all these ongoing research efforts for agendas and specific goals, which of course includes misleading the public.
  - lovemenot 5y ago
    Game theory could plausibly explain why PRC keeps resurfacing their unsubstantiated US military origins theory. Assuming an actual lab leak at WIV, from a US project similar to the one rejected by DARPA. And PRC is aware of all these facts. Under these assumptions, this story/rumour could be seen as a threat, which re-emerges whenever PRC feels under pressure: "We won't go down alone for this"
    - proc0 5y ago
      Agreed, and it was unsubstantiated till now (and also with the funding of it, etc). My point was mostly that we won't really be able to figure out the microbiology details of it in order to make reasonable conclusions. I think it would be like trying to figure out the physics of the nuclear bomb during the Manhattan project, and concluding no such bomb can be built because no physicist has figured out nuclear reactions yet.
- lovemenot 5y ago
  Your parent said like scientists. Not like jurists. And as far as I understand it, they are correct. Science doesn't convict an effect, it provides a lower bound on the likelihood of the effect's existence.
- blix 5y ago
  Depends on which real scientists you are talking about. I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers. I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded. It doesn't seem the first flavor is the one you are talking about.
text70 5y ago
You can disprove it by showing there are restriction enzyme, or Gibson, or Cre recombinase genetic element sites present in the genome, left over as artifacts from engineering. Find the sequenced genome and BLAST it for these sequences, easy peasy.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Natural occurrence is how almost every known virus exists. Given that prior, "can you disprove the lab" is the Russell's Teapot hypothesis. No, I can't. I also can't disprove it rode in on a meteorite or was beamed in by aliens. And I'm not about to start.

btmorex 5y ago
We haven't had the technology to create novel viruses for very long so you statement is meaningless.
- stablechaos 5y ago
  And the novel technology to create novel viruses was being actively developed in this lab. They've proudly and openly published results to this effect. Further, they were trying to get tens of millions in grant funding to develop the technology further.

passivate 5y ago

That is the wrong way to go about it. You have to approach it as you would in legal theory. Innocence is not something that is proven. The verdict is guilty or not guilty (which means evidence wasn't sufficient to convict, but that doesn't mean the defendant is innocent). In this case you have to prove that the virus was engineered by providing evidence. >All valid points, but let’s be real scientists and work the other way? What you're proposing isn't science and it isn't what 'real scientists' do.

proc0 5y ago
There's more than science here. This is also game theory, if a lab leak is still plausible. Why was this being researched? Who knew about it and why was it covered up, and to what extent was it covered up? Personally I think it's naive that people are omitting human and government intentions from all this, as if they are not actors in complex political world. These huge world changing events don't happen in a vacuum, and government actors are usually aware of all these ongoing research efforts for agendas and specific goals, which of course includes misleading the public.
- lovemenot 5y ago
  Game theory could plausibly explain why PRC keeps resurfacing their unsubstantiated US military origins theory. Assuming an actual lab leak at WIV, from a US project similar to the one rejected by DARPA. And PRC is aware of all these facts. Under these assumptions, this story/rumour could be seen as a threat, which re-emerges whenever PRC feels under pressure: "We won't go down alone for this"
  - proc0 5y ago
    Agreed, and it was unsubstantiated till now (and also with the funding of it, etc). My point was mostly that we won't really be able to figure out the microbiology details of it in order to make reasonable conclusions. I think it would be like trying to figure out the physics of the nuclear bomb during the Manhattan project, and concluding no such bomb can be built because no physicist has figured out nuclear reactions yet.
lovemenot 5y ago
Your parent said like scientists. Not like jurists. And as far as I understand it, they are correct. Science doesn't convict an effect, it provides a lower bound on the likelihood of the effect's existence.
blix 5y ago
Depends on which real scientists you are talking about. I've worked with many "real scientists" who will consider possiblity unless they see conclusive evidence against it. On the frontiers, there is very little conclusive evidence; this is why they are the frontiers. I have also met "real scientists" who actively dismiss conclusive evidence if it doesn't line up with what they think will get funded. It doesn't seem the first flavor is the one you are talking about.

text70 5y ago

You can disprove it by showing there are restriction enzyme, or Gibson, or Cre recombinase genetic element sites present in the genome, left over as artifacts from engineering. Find the sequenced genome and BLAST it for these sequences, easy peasy.