zlacker

>>todd8+(OP)
Judging by the comments in this thread, it seems a lot of people are still unaware that:

1. Gain of function research primarily uses samples collected from nature, and seeks to stimulate their evolution in as natural a way as possible to learn how viruses evolve in nature. If such viruses were to escape the lab, they would appear "natural"

2. It's not xenophobic for people from the US to suggest the possibility of a lab leak, because the US was itself funding gain of function research on novel coronaviruses in the Wuhan BSL4 lab

3. Lab leaks happen more often than most people realize[1]

[1]https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly...

>>loveis+Oj
It's also not xenophobic to suggest the possibility of a lab leak because lab leaks happen regardless of who's doing the research; even at BSL-4 facilities, mistakes are made. And also because there were two separate SARS-CoV-1 leaks/outbreaks from Chinese labs which the PRC admitted to. [1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403836/

>>arctic+UM
It is not xenophobic to suggest that.

However; since the "leaked virus" narrative was mostly parroted by rightwing media, and promoted from an overtly racist and xenophobic administration and political party, (in the USA) - it very much muddies the waters. There's also some very strong, direct evidence, that political appointees discussed (over email) strategies for subverting messaging from actual scientific experts who had actual data and studies backing up alternative explanations.

It would be nice if such narratives arose organically from actual events, and could be discussed openly. But that's impossible in our present political environment, and that's one of many many hazards of far-right politics. Any questions? Just ask Galileo his opinion on the matter.

>>Pokepo+IS
This is why it becomes important for us to have good faith conversations. I don't think it is impossible to have said conversations, but more difficult. We have to act in good faith and determine who is using this language as a dog whistle vs who is using it normally. We've seen how assuming everything is a dog whistle has backfired on us, so I'm not sure erroring in that direction is correct. But at the same time I don't think we should necessarily act as if there is no possibility someone is using language in that way (muddied waters). I think we just proceed with caution and do our best.