zlacker

A lot of people have tried to ascribe the reluctance of many scientists to admit the possibility of a lab leak to some conspiracy from the top or even political leanings. But it seems more likely to me that many scientists in the field, especially those that work specifically with gain of function, are going to be reluctant to blame a lab leak because they know that if it is found that covid was from a lab, then their funding is at risk. Not to mention those that may not have funding at risk but believe that gain of function research is important regardless of the risk.

>>jjeaff+(OP)
>more likely to me that many scientists in the field, especially those that work specifically with gain of function, are going to be reluctant to blame a lab leak because they know that if it is found that covid was from a lab, then their funding is at risk.

This would be easy to find out given that their names are public and so are the projects/papers/publications. What does the data indicate?

>>passiv+Bt
im quite certain lots of information is not at all public.

Seems it takes a high-ranking defector to suddenly get everyone sweating and carefully walking back written statements.

>>jjeaff+(OP)
I think it was just a dangerous cocktail of bad information pushed deliberately by a lot of different actors. A lot of people didn't like Trump, sure, but there were a lot of other people that were completely naive about Chinese propaganda.

>>inter_+561
>im quite certain lots of information is not at all public.

What information are you referring to that's not public? Most scientists' research areas, publications are public knowledge. Science relies on this to make progress.

OP claimed people signing the letter had a conflict of interest and/or were somehow complicit. Rather than getting into an argument, why not put forth the data. I'd suggest OP to look up their names, papers, labs, funding sources, etc and put forth a real argument.