4 ms·

The authors can believe what they want, isn't the whole point that if they're not willing to "commit" to those views, then they don't actually matter? We don't

by Zetice 3y ago

The authors can believe what they want, isn't the whole point that if they're not willing to "commit" to those views, then they don't actually matter? We don't know their mental state when writing those Slack messages, we don't know where they ended up after those thoughts, we don't know anything that could reasonably contextualize what we're seeing from the FOIA requests other than the raw text. The path to discovery is not a straight line, and if researchers are now somehow beholden to every offhand statement they make, every argument they mull over, every notion/hunch that comes to them, regardless of their ability to apply rigor, don't we lose a substantial amount of value from the process of peer review?

somenameforme 3y ago
I think this is veering pretty hard into the domain of politics where you kind of expect every politician to have a "public position" and an often contrary "private position." Science and scientists, in a functional society, should feel free to publicly say and discuss things as they see fit, whether it's in line with the norms of the time, or patently offensive to said norms. Obviously these individuals did not feel free discussing these matters, at all. And that's really the problem. These sort of leaks aren't going to cause some sort of new chilling effect. They're leaks because there was already a dramatic chilling effect in play. That saying "I think plausible thing is plausible." is only available in a "leak" indicates something has already long since gone horribly wrong.
- Zetice 3y ago
  There is what you believe, and then there is what you prove. Science isn’t interested in the former, and Nate Silver understands that. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and scientists are free to think whatever they like; however, what they say formally is subject to the process of peer review. We can speculate all day about why these folks committed to the position they did, but the published content is all that matters.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    You can read the paper in question here [1]. In cases like this where there's little to nothing in the way of experimentation or generalizations, all they're doing is assessing the evidence and offering their opinion on whatever they believe is most likely. The catch being in this case, what they said they believe is probably not what they did. [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
    - Zetice 3y ago
      I think it is representative of where they landed, but not of where they were the entire process. Folks often argue one thing but come to believe another over time, and what we see is only the end product of that journey (unless someone FOIAs our conversations). Are they retracting the paper? Are they publishing anything else to qualify their opinion or change their stance, formally? If not why not?
      - somenameforme 3y ago
        There's a really interesting article with a lot more relevant information here. [1] They (Andersen and Rambaut) describe exactly where they "landed", and how [1]: --- Andersen: “Natural selection and accidental release are both plausible scenarios explaining the data – and a priori should be equally weighed as possible explanations. The presence of a furin [cleavage site] a posteriori” — the furin cleavage site was the characteristic of the virus that the scientists thought was indicative of engineering or other lab origin — “moves me slightly more towards accidental release, but it’s well above my paygrade to call the shots on a final conclusion.” Rambaut: "Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes." Andersen: "Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that." --- Outside of this, another major issue (which they lied to congress about - these are some really stand up guys...) is that they had a grant for millions of dollars awaiting final approval from Fauci. Fauci is a major advocate for gain of function research, and Andersen was also worried that him digging further into lab leak could leave him being pinned as hostile to gain of function research. Defacto censoring science is how we destroy science. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-lea...

by Zetice 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

I think this is veering pretty hard into the domain of politics where you kind of expect every politician to have a "public position" and an often contrary "private position." Science and scientists, in a functional society, should feel free to publicly say and discuss things as they see fit, whether it's in line with the norms of the time, or patently offensive to said norms. Obviously these individuals did not feel free discussing these matters, at all. And that's really the problem. These sort of leaks aren't going to cause some sort of new chilling effect. They're leaks because there was already a dramatic chilling effect in play. That saying "I think plausible thing is plausible." is only available in a "leak" indicates something has already long since gone horribly wrong.

Zetice 3y ago
There is what you believe, and then there is what you prove. Science isn’t interested in the former, and Nate Silver understands that. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and scientists are free to think whatever they like; however, what they say formally is subject to the process of peer review. We can speculate all day about why these folks committed to the position they did, but the published content is all that matters.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  You can read the paper in question here [1]. In cases like this where there's little to nothing in the way of experimentation or generalizations, all they're doing is assessing the evidence and offering their opinion on whatever they believe is most likely. The catch being in this case, what they said they believe is probably not what they did. [1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
  - Zetice 3y ago
    I think it is representative of where they landed, but not of where they were the entire process. Folks often argue one thing but come to believe another over time, and what we see is only the end product of that journey (unless someone FOIAs our conversations). Are they retracting the paper? Are they publishing anything else to qualify their opinion or change their stance, formally? If not why not?
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      There's a really interesting article with a lot more relevant information here. [1] They (Andersen and Rambaut) describe exactly where they "landed", and how [1]: --- Andersen: “Natural selection and accidental release are both plausible scenarios explaining the data – and a priori should be equally weighed as possible explanations. The presence of a furin [cleavage site] a posteriori” — the furin cleavage site was the characteristic of the virus that the scientists thought was indicative of engineering or other lab origin — “moves me slightly more towards accidental release, but it’s well above my paygrade to call the shots on a final conclusion.” Rambaut: "Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes." Andersen: "Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that." --- Outside of this, another major issue (which they lied to congress about - these are some really stand up guys...) is that they had a grant for millions of dollars awaiting final approval from Fauci. Fauci is a major advocate for gain of function research, and Andersen was also worried that him digging further into lab leak could leave him being pinned as hostile to gain of function research. Defacto censoring science is how we destroy science. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-lea...