A charitable interpretation would read the statement as "further speculative debate". Indeed, several of the lab leak arguments mentioned in that very article w

A charitable interpretation would read the statement as "further speculative debate". Indeed, several of the lab leak arguments mentioned in that very article were subsequently disproven months later, and their unqualified and categorical assertions were arguably no less unprofessional (indeed, perhaps more unprofessional) than other scientists simply exclaiming, "Ssshhhhhh". We can't know the precise motivations behind those who suggested Sir Jermey pipe down, but indeed that's the problem with such speculative discourse. When speaking with a public voice--which can arguably include private communications to political leadership--there's nothing per se untoward, IMHO, with demanding that professionals speak carefully. It's a fine line, but I don't see anything damning in these e-mail disclosures even though I'll readily admit that many people, including professionals (scientists, journalists, etc), prematurely dismissed the possibility of a Wuhan lab leak.