News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.
My former colleagues at another university in Middle East have also been moved to online teaching indefinitely, with the students…
If much of the interest of high-quality papers lies between the lines—in the metaphorical fire that a paper lights in…
I would also recommend that potential grad students make inquiries into how far the compensation package actually goes towards cost…
It’s a mix. I’m still in the UAE with my family, and we feel safe. But some students and faculty…
In the above comment, Michel wrote: “As an aside, every once in a while I check out how the chatbots…
I could imagine LLMs having saved me a *ton* of time in graduate school–e.g., by having supplied reasonable answers to…
The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…
Here's a detailed and sober abductive argument that it did, although it's not conclusive.
(Thanks to Roger Crisp for the pointer.)
I'm no expert on this sort of work, and would be glad to hear from someone who knows more. But the argument against the lab-origin hypothesis that he dismisses is of exactly the same form as the argument against the wildlife-origin hypothesis that he endorses. The former says "no known human gain-of-function research uses this particular DNA backbone"; the latter says "no virus in the same class has a furin cleavage site, and only 5% use the CGG codon for arginine".
I've been told that MERS has a furin cleavage site (which suggests that "same class" is understood very narrowly here), and one of the claims later is sourced to Independent Science News (https://www.independentsciencenews.org/), which seems to have many other pieces specifically targeting this Daszak person that is targeted here.
This makes me worry about this particular source and this particular argument. Though another piece that just came out in Science argues that at least both possible origin stories should still be considered open possibilities, without making allegations as strong as this one: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1
In the article, the author states the following:
"[Dr. Shi's] work was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)…And grant proposals that funded her work, which are a matter of public record, specify exactly what she planned to do with the money."
The author then argues that the grant proposals "exactly" specify gain-of-function methods.
But I'm skeptical that the grant proposals do so. The author cites two terms from these proposals: "reverse genetics", and "infectious clone technology". According to the author, these two terms "exactly" communicate the intention to use gain-of-function methods. But both terms seem generic or unspecific: They seem to be umbrella terms for a whole host of research methods—not just gain-of-function methods.
That said, I know very little about biology. There's a non-trivial chance that I'm incorrect. Perhaps a more biologically-informed reader can help out.
Here is a detailed, sober and informed push-back:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kAHSEx9-eIyVIahczH8itHaUm9jI9WX7
(Off a thread in response to a similar question posted by Timothy Gowers on his Twitter feed)
I was also trying to find, mostly without luck, a real, strong counterargument. I gathered from assorted twitter sniping that some of the scientific details in what Brian linked were not 100% accurate, though the errors didn't seem to me to have a material impact on the bulk of the argument. Perhaps suggesting the author should be less confident in his conclusion, but not that it is a mistake to tentatively hold it.
Regarding the google drive document, it's the best counterpoint I was able to find as well, though it's worth noting that the last update was a year ago. Some of it seemed a bit off to me, and I'd love to see a more up to date response. A big thing is that a lot of this response is focused on countering the claim that characteristics of the virus as a whole were intentionally designed, but that's not really what the original article argues in support of (for the most part for both articles).
Interestingly, at the end the author of the google drive post gives 6 conditions which, if any are true, might cause them to revise their view. And as far as I can tell, some evidence later emerged that at least 2 of them may be the case. There are some questions about the history of RaTG-13. Also, I believe the US State Department has since claimed that several people in WIV may have been sick with covid-like symptoms before the outbreak. And as far as I can tell the timing happened to coincide exactly with some sketchy secretive behavior which has still not been lifted.
Also, given I'm just deferring to experts anyway, based on the letter to Science last week a number of virologists, etc far more accomplished than the author of the google drive post believe lab origin is at least plausible. And as an outsider, the most common recurring arguments…not all…against the now quite detailed case for a lab accident (whether found in nature and brought back or actively helped along while asking other questions) are mostly character assassination for the proponent not being in the field. Which is a fair point, though any outsider can plainly see this particular case is unusually complicated by the extreme economic and professional (and even moral) incentives for a natural origin being true or else your funding would be at risk.
I have no clue what to think about the origin myself, I'm just trying to understand why some people are so sure one way or the other and would love any further information.
—–
KEYWORDS:
Primary Blog
Leave a Reply to Kenny Easwaran Cancel reply