zlacker

[return to "Leaked grant proposal details high-risk coronavirus research"]
1. missin+H81[view] [source] 2021-09-24 23:10:23
>>BellLa+(OP)
Check out this prescient article from 2017, when the ban was lifted:

Critics say these researchers risk creating a monster germ that could escape the lab and seed a pandemic...

Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics at the Harvard School of Public Health, called review panels “a small step forward.”

Recent disease-enhancing experiments, he said, “have given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to improve our preparedness for pandemics, and yet risked creating an accidental pandemic.”

Therefore, he said, he hoped the panels would turn down such work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/health/lethal-viruses-nih...

◧◩
2. tootie+6b1[view] [source] 2021-09-24 23:34:48
>>missin+H81
Prescient how? This article is about a rejected proposal. Not only did the research not happen, we have no reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.
◧◩◪
3. rhacke+cc1[view] [source] 2021-09-24 23:46:09
>>tootie+6b1
A rejected proposal does not mean research does not happen. It means they were unable to get funding from DARPA. It does not necessarily mean they were unable to get funding from "somebody".

And yes we do have reason to believe this type of research caused the pandemic.

◧◩◪◨
4. avs733+nt1[view] [source] 2021-09-25 03:02:04
>>rhacke+cc1
As an academic, ain’t no way research from an unfunded grant proposal is happening…

The problem with your second statement is that we all of these posts and articles are attempts to throw evidence to support something you have already decided is true. More bad/non evidence does not make an argument and continually citing bad evidence that doesn’t prove your point reduces the credibility of the argument you are making.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. derbOa+pv1[view] [source] 2021-09-25 03:26:35
>>avs733+nt1
Ok, as another academic: this happens all the time. People use funds from one grant to subsidize other research. I've heard a colleague refer to it "as using one project to pay the bills of another project."

It's all also a moot point in that just because the grant wasn't funded from DARPA doesn't mean it wasn't funded. And if it was funded, it doesn't mean we would know who funded it.

Not trying to be conspiratorial, just trying to point out the funding on this grant or lack thereof doesn't mean anything about it happening or not happening. It just means the researchers were interested in it happening.

[go to top]