zlacker

>>ruarai+(OP)
While the headline talks about covid, I found other bits of the article scary. For instance the supposed lax handling of pathogens like smallpox. While I would trust the worldwide scientific community for covid origin theories, I cannot look past the egregious safety violations reported in the article (if true).

>>0xcafe+2o1
>While I would trust the worldwide scientific community for covid origin theories

Which scientific community are you referring to? There are countless scientists who have been arguing against the risks of gain of function research for many years. Why are pro-gain of function scientists deathly silent now about the supposed benefits of their research?

>>loveis+Et1
I had the same thought. Maybe it's just the crowd I run with, but criticism of gain-of-function research (certainly including informed speculation of a lab escape for this coronavirus) seem very mainstream to me.

>>jMyles+iw1
I believe grand-parent was talking about a lab leak, not necessarily with gain of function research being involved, and scientists dismissal.

Which is not a dismissal at all. What scientists are saying is that both zoonotic transfer and lab leak are plausible, but that we don't have evidence for the latter (yet!) and the former is more likely.

In many media articles this simplifies to 'scientists say virus origins are zoonotic'.

>>Pyramu+OB1
>the former is more likely.

Is this likelihood differential being calculated using data, or is it just a hypothesis?