top | item 30400299

(no title)

This article rubs me the wrong way. The headline isn’t well supported by its content, as the article drifts off to cheery picking counter arguments debunking lab-origin conspiracy theories. And a whole lot of questionable references to other idiotic conspiracy narratives.

Considering the natural origin hypothesis hasn’t been proven yet, mixing up skeptics with conspi nuts feels disingenuous, rhetorically targeting emotions and identity. I don’t think there is a huge overlap with those considering gain of function research as possible origin, with your typical death-by-5G, antivax flatearther, or climate denialist. Downright dismissing a lab origin, when really both ways are completely possible, feels patronizing and not scientific at all. I also don’t think someone who thinks about the FCS is likely to shoot a researcher on their way home. Or listens to Trumps bullshit, for that matter.

Not everyone thinks SARS2 is a bio weapon designed by Bill Gates. To me however, the mere possibility of a lab origin influences my opinion on gain of function research and legislation, and that should be the real discourse here IMO. Attributing this to China really is beside the point and realistically “impossible knowledge“ considering the extent of a possible liability issue at hand, anyway. The xenophobic attacks started right from the start, when Trump rallied against “the China virus” instead of taking action against its spread. No one, but Biontech and virologists were concerned about the genome of the virus back then.

discuss

drekk|4 years ago

The article didn't downright dismiss it. In fact the author took pains to mention that conspiratorial thinking, of which it lists many non-fringe examples, slows down legitimate inquiry into the dangers of gain of function research.

If you care about whether or not the virus is zoonotic in origin that takes time. It still hasn't been done for ebola. In the meantime saying we think it's China let's investigate China specifically is looking for data in support of a hypothesis and not the other way around.