Bakkster Man (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 669: | Line 669: | ||
:{{tq|Do any of the eminent references provide evidence that the intermediatory could not be humanize mice? That would be interesting to know.}} To reiterate, unless we have a reliable source that suggests they ''could'' be the intermediary, why would we cite a source source saying a thing wasn't possible. We'd have a hella long article if we had to list and cite every possibility that was ruled out that nobody suggested should be considered in the first place. Sure, we ruled out a meteor, but did we rule out a comet? What about Martians? Titans? Alpha Centaurans? |
:{{tq|Do any of the eminent references provide evidence that the intermediatory could not be humanize mice? That would be interesting to know.}} To reiterate, unless we have a reliable source that suggests they ''could'' be the intermediary, why would we cite a source source saying a thing wasn't possible. We'd have a hella long article if we had to list and cite every possibility that was ruled out that nobody suggested should be considered in the first place. Sure, we ruled out a meteor, but did we rule out a comet? What about Martians? Titans? Alpha Centaurans? |
||
:Here's the thing about the whole debate. Even if you think the explanation is most likely to be true (it might be) and the scientific establishment is suppressing it (they might be) and that the truth will eventually come out, then until it does WP policy still says we should give the credibility to the credible sources, until the situation changes. And it's why we changed our writing on the topic after the WHO study was published, the mainstream view had changed and we reflected that. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC) |
:Here's the thing about the whole debate. Even if you think the explanation is most likely to be true (it might be) and the scientific establishment is suppressing it (they might be) and that the truth will eventually come out, then until it does WP policy still says we should give the credibility to the credible sources, until the situation changes. And it's why we changed our writing on the topic after the WHO study was published, the mainstream view had changed and we reflected that. [[User:Bakkster Man|Bakkster Man]] ([[User talk:Bakkster Man|talk]]) 13:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::In Wikipedia, we do need sources in order to stop nonsense flat earth theories being presented as fact. But that does not mean that as editors we cannot apply common sense and make sensible deductions. The goal is to produce good articles, not just mindlessly follow some bureaucratic process. |
|||
:::While the scientific literature might be the major source for scientific truth, it is not the only source for what should be included in an article. One thing to consider is what people that consume the article might be wanting to find out. That is, ultimately, the goal of the exercise. And the Scientific literature has no bearing on that. |
|||
:::It is completely obvious that many people are concerned that the virus may have leaked from WIV. The reasons that I gave for plausibility are obviously solid, and none of the scientific literature disagrees with them. And it is equally obvious that humanized mice are used for gain-of-function research, which is why it is obviously important to know whether that is technically feasible. |
|||
:::I am not for a moment suggesting that the article should say that the conspiracy theories are correct. But the fact that readers (like myself) what to know is reason enough to deal with them. |
|||
:::In this case, we also know that some of the scientific opinions have been written by people that have a vested interest (E.g. Dazsag, and Shi). |
|||
:::I would add that the following paragraph reads like a rant rather than a sober, Wikipedian analysis. |
|||
::::Yet, its origin, which remains unknown, have become debated within the context of global geopolitical tensions. Early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was a biological weapon developed by China, amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right. Other conspiracy theories promoted misinformation that the virus is not communicable or was created to profit from new vaccines. |
|||
:::This led me (and I suspect many other readers) to suspect that it was written by members of the Chinese government, a suspicion that I still hold. |
|||
:::Incidentally, I would not mind a section titled "Conspiracy Theories as to the Origins of the Virus". Then the context would be clear. [[User:Tuntable|Tuntable]] ([[User talk:Tuntable|talk]]) 00:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021 == |
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021 == |
Revision as of 00:49, 7 June 2021
|topic=
not specified. Available options:
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Highlighted open discussions
Current page-specific consensus
NOTE: The following is a list of material maintained on grounds that it represents current consensus for the articles under the scope of this project. In accordance with Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, ("prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content except when consensus for the edit exists") changes of the material listed below in this article must be discussed first, and repeated offenses against established consensus may result in administrative action. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2#Current consensus]], item [n]
. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .
1. There is consensus that the terms "Wuhan virus" or "China virus" should not be used in the Lead of the article. The terms and their history can be discussed in the body of the article. Discussion permalink
Discussion of 4th origin hypothesis
Continuing discussion here after revert by @Hemiauchenia:, regarding the following text from the Reservoir and zoonotic origin section, changes emphasized:
All available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin and is not genetically engineered. Nevertheless, early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. While some scientists, including David Relman and former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, believe it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute,[1][2] the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".
A few topics for discussion:
- Could you direct me to the prior consensus for this page? If prior to the latest report, would it be prudent to reconsider that consensus (as we did with COVID-19 when the WHO deprecated the coronavirus disease 2019 name)?
- My intent was not to suggest a plurality of adherants gives weight. I was instead taking WP:DUE as my guide:
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
. I can appreciate that ability to name prominent adherents does not necessarily mean they must be listed by name in the article. - I wanted to clarify if your primary concern was with the addition of Relman, or if you had concerns with the remainder of the above content (which is transcluded on other pages, namely Investigations into the origin of COVID-19). Per our other discussions, I expected you would have objected to the Redfield inclusion as well. So I wanted to either bring it to your attention if you missed it, or better understand your concern.
Appreciate your time. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- David Relman has no relevant expertise on coronaviruses, and therefore his opinion is undue. Redfield is probably due as he is actually a virologist and is former head of the CDC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with that interpretation, thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- In this link there is a list of the "best experts" that can speak on "the origins of COVID and trying to understand the science underlying a lab leak hypothesis: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1381261347736981508?s=20, according to Dr. Alina Chan, a Vector and Genetic Engineering Specialist that has written about the debate on social media and journals. Forich (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would not trust anything coming from Alina Chan, who is just a postdoc (so, not an expert or authority on any topic) and moreover has been a prominent proponent of origin conspiracy theories. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- JoelleJay The list from Chan that Forich linked to can also be found in an editorial she co-authored with Matt Ridley for The Telegraph [1] with citations here [2]. Your spurious claim that Chan is a proponent of conspiracy theories is undue in this discussion. CutePeach (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- That she has published the same list elsewhere doesn't make her more reliable. And her twitter feed more than establishes her pro-conspiracy stance. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you can demonstrate your acussations on Chan I would agree on not considering her as a source for a list of experts. If you @JoelleJay: are not a top coronavirologist yourself, I suggest we ask in Wikiproject Virology both Chan's status and whether there are any top scientists we should use as the prominent voice of the minority position discussed.Forich (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well for one she is a post-doc with, apparently, 4 total papers (and only 2 in virology) so she is not an authority in virology whatsoever. For another, she has promoted the anti-natural-origin/lab-engineering conspiracies pushed by DRASTIC/Mr. Deigin (which is apparent by her uncritically citing the Segreto/Deigin BioEssays paper and Rahalkar's Frontiers in paper in her still-unpublished SARS-CoV-2 article). She is one of the more balanced and scientifically-literate natural-origin "skeptics", for sure, but her role is very clearly on the "Twitterverse speculation" side of things rather than the "backed by decades of highly-relevant research experience" side. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well, point taken that she has not published extensively, but she is young, and I've read her recent paper on pangolin samples, and it looks like a very good piece of research. She is also good at communicating research in social media, in my opinion. I agree that some of the guys in that DRASTIC troupe seem unreliable, I hope she is not officialy part of them, I tend to read her tweets to stay informed on SARS-CoV-2. I will still ask in Wikiproject Virology, though. Forich (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well for one she is a post-doc with, apparently, 4 total papers (and only 2 in virology) so she is not an authority in virology whatsoever. For another, she has promoted the anti-natural-origin/lab-engineering conspiracies pushed by DRASTIC/Mr. Deigin (which is apparent by her uncritically citing the Segreto/Deigin BioEssays paper and Rahalkar's Frontiers in paper in her still-unpublished SARS-CoV-2 article). She is one of the more balanced and scientifically-literate natural-origin "skeptics", for sure, but her role is very clearly on the "Twitterverse speculation" side of things rather than the "backed by decades of highly-relevant research experience" side. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you can demonstrate your acussations on Chan I would agree on not considering her as a source for a list of experts. If you @JoelleJay: are not a top coronavirologist yourself, I suggest we ask in Wikiproject Virology both Chan's status and whether there are any top scientists we should use as the prominent voice of the minority position discussed.Forich (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- That she has published the same list elsewhere doesn't make her more reliable. And her twitter feed more than establishes her pro-conspiracy stance. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- JoelleJay The list from Chan that Forich linked to can also be found in an editorial she co-authored with Matt Ridley for The Telegraph [1] with citations here [2]. Your spurious claim that Chan is a proponent of conspiracy theories is undue in this discussion. CutePeach (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would not trust anything coming from Alina Chan, who is just a postdoc (so, not an expert or authority on any topic) and moreover has been a prominent proponent of origin conspiracy theories. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- In this link there is a list of the "best experts" that can speak on "the origins of COVID and trying to understand the science underlying a lab leak hypothesis: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1381261347736981508?s=20, according to Dr. Alina Chan, a Vector and Genetic Engineering Specialist that has written about the debate on social media and journals. Forich (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man: I have to disagree with Hemiauchenia on this. David Relman is a Microbiologist and Microbiology is a superset of virology and coronavirology. He is especially due as he foretold of a crisis where a SARS coronavirus escapes from a lab to cause a pandemic [3] [4]. Coronavirologist Ralph Baric could also be due, as per [5], [6] and [7], but he hasn’t said much since that last interview.
- I think Ebright is the most due, as he is leading on this issue from the front with open letters, while Relman and Lipsitch support more from the rear with commentary in the press. Ebright, Relman and Lipsitch were all founding members of The Cambridge Working Group and they have been advocating for increased regulation of gain of function research for years, due to the inevitability of occupational and laboratory acquired infections. CutePeach (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach:I appreciate the list and context of The Cambridge Working Group, very useful. Though I disagree that this make them more due. If anything, I think it would make them less reliable on the topic, since they're potentially more apt to be biased towards seeing the issue they've been advocating against? Which isn't to call their professional credentials into doubt, just a natural challenge for humans (if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail and all that). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man: I agree that scientists can be biased, but these scientists are not making biased statements. They state only that the theory should not be dismissed and advocate for a transparent and open investigation. I don’t think it's fair to characterize them as biased for advocating for an investigation into the lab leak hypothesis when the prevailing view is that it's "extremely unlikely". Relman declined to be interviewed on this by Fox News in order not to politicize the issue [8], Lipsitch took a lot of criticism for remaining silent for so long [9], and even Ebright, who is the most vocal, does not mention Wuhan Institute of Virology without pointing to the two other labs in the city as the possible sites of origin [10]. These scientists are concerned with the inherent bias that exists within the scientific community and they have always advocated for independent oversight from non scientists, such as bioethics experts. Their advocacy succeeded in pausing funding for certain kinds of GoFR in 2014 and their more recent calls pressured the WHO into widening the scope of its investigations into the origins of COVID-19. I think they are worth including. CutePeach (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach:
I agree that scientists can be biased, but these scientists are not making biased statements.
For clarity, I'm not suggesting these scientists are doing anything wrong. More the 'if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail' kind of thing. Because of their important work, they may be more likely to lean towards this as the source. It doesn't mean they're wrong, just that they might be more prone to lean this direction. That theyadvocate for a transparent and open investigation
is exactly what I want as well, and once that new investigation has results we'll cover what it says. Per [[WP:CRYSTALBALL}}: "Although currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections." Bakkster Man (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC) They state only that the theory should not be dismissed
, which I agree with 100%, and have worked to make sure the articles do not do.- I also wanted to point out the Baric/Graham article (the only journal link above) had this to say the lab theory:
In light of social media speculation about possible laboratory manipulation and deliberate and/or accidental release of SARS-CoV-2, Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence.
Bakkster Man (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC) - @Bakkster Man: Thanks for reading the Baric/Graham article. Let's not leave out the part that says
Transparency and open scientific investigation will be essential to resolve this issue, noting that forensic evidence of natural escape is currently lacking, and other explanations remain reasonable.
. That quote can be paired with what said in his RAI interview:if you're asking about intent, or whether the virus existed beforehand, it would only be in the records of the Institute of Virology in Wuhan
[11], and the more recent open letter which confirms his position [12]. Baric has more papers on coronaviruses published in top-tier journals than any other coronavirolagist, so his expert opinion is very much WP:DUE in this article and related articles. CutePeach (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- So what change do you think should be made to the article? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- The change I would suggest, as I explained in our exchange above, is to include the varied number of scientists who signed the Science letter. They are not all Cambridge Working Group members, and I think we can agree either that they can be presented as an opposing POV to the Andersen et al letter, or even as a neutral point of view from a group of scientists of widely backgrounds and positions. Either way is fine for me. CutePeach (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Have a specific suggestion? Because the way I'm interpreting going about this would likely be WP:UNDUE amount of text, for information we already have on the article by way of citing the letter itself. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- The change I would suggest, as I explained in our exchange above, is to include the varied number of scientists who signed the Science letter. They are not all Cambridge Working Group members, and I think we can agree either that they can be presented as an opposing POV to the Andersen et al letter, or even as a neutral point of view from a group of scientists of widely backgrounds and positions. Either way is fine for me. CutePeach (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- So what change do you think should be made to the article? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CutePeach:
- I agree with that interpretation, thank you. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Specific suggestion: create a section on the etiology of the virus, documenting everything that has transpired so far, including the WHO Convened Global Study with China and the report they put out, and the responses it got from the WHO DG and WHO member states, saying "Echoing the WHO Director-General and WHO member states, several scientists, including David Relman of Stanford, Marc Lipsitch of Harvard and Ralph Baric of UNC penned a letter in Science Magazine saying that the WHO's report consideration of evidence supporting a laboratory accident was insufficient and that the two leading theories it assessed were not given balanced consideration". I’m sure you would agree to creating an etiology/origins section in this article, as we have in HIV and other articles on viruses. CutePeach (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I liked the original paragraph posted by Bakkster. An observation to consider is that the premise "some scientists, including David Relman and former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, believe it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute" is not negated (not even weakly) by the follow up: "the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is extremely unlikely ", because, statistically, having a likely event by expert opinion can coexist with having the same event be extremely unlikely by some other expert opinion. If we wish to illustrate the strength of authority of the experts, then we may like to put less emphasis on the arrived statement of likelihood, and more emphasis on the authority of the source. Or better yet, we could cite a MEDRS that explicitely summarizes the evidence that allowed the WHO to conclude that it was extremely unlikely, so that we are totally transparent. Forich (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be more clear, according to a popular scale of likelihood statements (the one used for climate change by the IPCC) a likely statement belong to a range between 66%-90%, and an "extremely likely" statement correspond to a 1% - 5% chance. Divergence of opinions on the scale can not cancel each other unless one is based on better methods or has acces to better evidence. The current phrase puts a "While" conditional prefacing the likely claim followed by the extremely likely claim, which fails to comment on whether the original claim was weak, it only comments on there being several opinions. Forich (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a bit uncertain what you're suggesting, or at least how to accomplish it. I read the current wording (though it could be more clear) as intended to be
While *minority opinion*, *majority opinion per MEDRS sources*
. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)- Ok, let me propose two versions that address the issue:
- Option 1: "While some individual voices from scientists, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, believe it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute, sources officially representing International Health Organizations, such as the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is extremely unlikely.
- Option 2: "While some scientists, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, interpret some circumstantial coincidence as suggestion that it is likely that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute, the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is extremely unlikely, based on insert evidence that supports WHO's conclusion here.
- I'm a bit uncertain what you're suggesting, or at least how to accomplish it. I read the current wording (though it could be more clear) as intended to be
Extended content
|
---|
The closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2 from bats and pangolin are evolutionarily distant from SARSCoV-2. There has been speculation regarding the presence of human ACE2 receptor binding and a furin-cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2, but both have been found in animal viruses as well, and elements of the furin-cleavage site are present in RmYN02 and the new Thailand bat SARSr-CoV. There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019, or genomes that in combination could provide a SARS-CoV-2 genome. Regarding accidental culture, prior to December 2019, there is no evidence of circulation of SARS-CoV-2 among people globally and the surveillance programme in place was limited regarding the number of samples processed and therefore the risk of accidental culturing SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory is extremely low. The three laboratories in Wuhan working with either CoVs diagnostics and/or CoVs isolation and vaccine development all had high quality biosafety level (BSL3 or 4) facilities that were well-managed, with a staff health monitoring programme with no reporting of COVID-19 compatible respiratory illness during the weeks/months prior to December 2019, and no serological evidence of infection in workers through SARS-CoV-2-specific serology-screening. The Wuhan CDC lab which moved on 2nd December 2019 reported no disruptions or incidents caused by the move. They also reported no storage nor laboratory activities on CoVs or other bat viruses preceding the outbreak. |
The difficulty here is the simplest arguments to summarize quickly are the ones based on a lack of relevant data, which is the primary critique of the report. Perhaps I'm just being overly cautious here, but I'd lean towards not trying to summarize. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing the arguments cited in the report against 4th origin. The WHO mission reported that "There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019", which is the main argument, supplemented by their assesment of the lab security standards and the absence of sick staff around the time of the outbreak. I agree that it can be tricky to summarize these arguments. My best effort is this: "While some scientists, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, speculate that it is 'likely' that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute, the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is 'extremely unlikely', because their examination of the labs revealed no virus before December 2019 that could have triggered the outbreak, and no signs of any of the concomitant circumstances that are known to accompany accidental leakages". Forich (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Previewing CNN Special Report "COVID WAR" - Transcript". www.cnn.com. Retrieved 31 March 2021.
- ^ Relman, David A. (24 November 2020). "Opinion: To stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (47): 29246–29248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021133117.
{{cite journal}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
(help); Check|doi=
value (help); External link in
(help)|doi=
- There is a piece in the New York Times titled The C.D.C.’s ex-director offers no evidence in favoring speculation that the coronavirus originated in a lab.. If we're adding the opinions of the ex-director as somehow DUE, can we first establish if he's offered any evidence for his speculation, and second decide if we need to name each scientist rebutting this statement? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on keeping the mention as brief as possible (do not mention every pro lab leak guy), which leaves us with either: citing one prominent person (either Redford or Ebright), or perhaps citing the most recent open letter co-signed by Ebright, as it represents their collective position. Responding to ProcastinatingReader question, Redford did not disclose any new evidence, but we certainly can not dismiss him as unfamiliar with the circumstances of the pandemic. In fact, he is the one person we can be sure that was shown lots of data and pertinent questions about the pandemic origin in all the meetings he had during the early stages of the pandemic with the White House and the intelligence units. If you have evidence that Redford is not being honest with his assesment, it needs to be backed by RS. Forich (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- While Redfield is easily the more prominent, my read of his statement could essentially be boiled down to putting more weight on the open letter's conclusions, which makes it the more meaningful inclusion IMO. Redfield only makes sense for 'identifying prominent adherents' for proving it's a notable minority opinion per WP:DUE Bakkster Man (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on keeping the mention as brief as possible (do not mention every pro lab leak guy), which leaves us with either: citing one prominent person (either Redford or Ebright), or perhaps citing the most recent open letter co-signed by Ebright, as it represents their collective position. Responding to ProcastinatingReader question, Redford did not disclose any new evidence, but we certainly can not dismiss him as unfamiliar with the circumstances of the pandemic. In fact, he is the one person we can be sure that was shown lots of data and pertinent questions about the pandemic origin in all the meetings he had during the early stages of the pandemic with the White House and the intelligence units. If you have evidence that Redford is not being honest with his assesment, it needs to be backed by RS. Forich (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I question why there's so much emphasis on one opinion v. the other—as opposed to being clear that it's really not known, and that there may not be an actual consensus at this point. In other words—why focus on which explanation has "more evidence" rather than remain a bit agnostic and clarify that no one at this point really knows? A new article reveals that a report by scientists at Lawrence Livermore undermines the "consensus" argument and our article's assertion that entertaining a possible laboratory origin is a "conspiracy theory":
- "A classified study of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 conducted a year ago by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Department of Energy’s premier biodefense research institution, concluded the novel coronavirus at the heart of the current pandemic may have originated in a laboratory in China… the U.S. intelligence community has not been able to discount either theory, nor have the medical or scientific communities produced any consensus as to which theory is correct. [1]
- There's also clear evidence that US intelligence agencies believe there is a real possibility the virus escaped from a lab:
- "US intelligence agencies still do not know "exactly where, when or how Covid-19 virus was transmitted initially" in China but remain focused on two primary theories, that "it emerged naturally from human contact with infected animals or it was a laboratory accident," the nation's top spy told Senate lawmakers on Wednesday."[2]
- This all seems worthy of inclusion, no? The information is newer than the NYT article claiming some sort of "consensus" by both scientists and intelligence agencies. As for the latter, the NYT quotes unnamed officials—as opposed to the DNI quoted by CNN. The above are more recent and are reliable secondary sources, which the WHO report is not. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:NOLABLEAK for a sensible round-up of the current state of sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- One of the reasons why WP:MEDRS says to avoid news reports like those is because there is a long history of news media both making good-faith errors, but more importantly because they tend to create a false balance, making an issue out to be one expert says X vs another expert says Y. That's not generally how science is done. The ABCNews report that you link to is really an excellent (in a bad way) example of this problem. The editors and authors are fundamentally not qualified to assess the sources they are interviewing, and the end result is really worse than nothing at all. I'm not even sure whether intelligence agencies' evaluations are relevant or useful, except to the extent that they might be in a position to confirm a lab leak and have not done so. In the absence of direct intelligence evidence (and even then, consider that intelligence products usually omit their sources for obvious reasons), virologists and epidemiologists would be the people best positioned to determine the origin of the virus. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Just to add, for a more specific explanation for why WP:MEDRS frowns upon media sources like these, see the MEDRS section WP:MEDPOP Hyperion35 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
David Baltimore
David Baltimore does not have an MD so it is doubtful that he would be an MD reliable source; however, he could perhaps be used as another proponent, like former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, that SARS-CoV-2 might have a lab origin. Baltimore states:[13]
- “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus,” said David Baltimore, an eminent virologist and former president of CalTech. “These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2,” he said.
It is David Baltimore, so I will allow the virology experts on this page to hash out what to make of the article and his quote. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Given that Baltimore classification is named after him, I think it's going to be a stretch to suggest he's not a notable and qualified individual. I think it's worth pointing out that MEDRS is about WP:BMI, which is broader than pure medicine, and as a biologist/virologist I'd say his credentials are applicable. Doesn't change my view that the theory is fringe, but I definitely think if we're going to mention one proponent Baltimore would be better than Redfield.
- My one question is whether the Baltimore quote came from another source, or if he provided the quote directly to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, or if they sourced it elsewhere. If we link to a Baltimore quote, we should use the original source. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- A quick (not really reliable) search suggests the quote comes only from that article. It was first published on medium and the note that it was added after first publication and involvement of Baltimore in the Bulletin suggests a direct provision of the quote (guess it was added later to medium too?). Personuser (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's my impression, which makes me somewhat hesitant. It's likely a WP:RS, but it's definitely one of the weirder ones. Here's hoping that this gets picked up by a more traditional source to remove that concern. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- A quick (not really reliable) search suggests the quote comes only from that article. It was first published on medium and the note that it was added after first publication and involvement of Baltimore in the Bulletin suggests a direct provision of the quote (guess it was added later to medium too?). Personuser (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Any biomedical claims need WP:MEDRS. Weirdo self-published crap, not so much. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Whether Baltimore is an expert or not, this is a non-peer-reviewed primary claim. One expert looking at viral genome sequence does not constitute a MEDRS source, and it is impossible to claim that a statement about a viral genome is not biomedical. The ultimate problem is that you can find one expert, somewhere, who will advocate in favor of any fringe or even patently nonsense idea. There are a few biologists who have endorsed Biblical Creationism, for example. Another problem with sourcing a quote from a non-scientific media report is that these sorts of statements aren't qualitative or quantitative. To what extent is Baltimore certain that furine cleavage sites could not have evolved naturally? A real scientist would have to qualify that remark, especially given that the statement "X could not evolve naturally" is one of the most consistently disproven statements in biology.
Remember, ideally we want peer-reciewed published reviews, or certsin types of reports from major medical organizations. Secondary, not primary. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- For Redfield we use the NY Times, which probably isn't a MEDRS either. He also stressed that this is nothing more than his opinion. The quote from Baltimore is even less strong, since it's about his first impression. I believe the sentence is worth keeping in some form, but doesn't need any more prominence than it already has. If we really need to make some names, using just Redfield seems the most apropriate soluton, but since we are reporting an opinion an contrapposing it to RSMEDs and general consensus this doesn't seem to require the same reliability as medical claims, rather more careful phrasing. Personuser (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not all that comfortable with the Redfield quote either. I can see an argument that his position probably means that we'll have to mention it, although I do have to say that I cannot imagine any circumstances where the director of my agency would publicly contradict a major report, especially to news media. Part of the problem here is that we have these non-qualified opinions from individuals vs heavily-reviewed secondary reports from groups that are full of qualified statements like "highly unlikely". To a non-expert, the certainty of quotes from experts like Redfield and Baltimore seem more powerful than uncertain statements from a group. To experts, it's the other way around. I mention this because I do understand why some people prefer Redfield and Baltimore, it's the whole "I know/trust this guy, and he's saying it straight, no weasel words". And I know that we'll need to be able to help other editors understand how to think like an expert. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- For Redfield we use the NY Times, which probably isn't a MEDRS either. He also stressed that this is nothing more than his opinion. The quote from Baltimore is even less strong, since it's about his first impression. I believe the sentence is worth keeping in some form, but doesn't need any more prominence than it already has. If we really need to make some names, using just Redfield seems the most apropriate soluton, but since we are reporting an opinion an contrapposing it to RSMEDs and general consensus this doesn't seem to require the same reliability as medical claims, rather more careful phrasing. Personuser (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The existing wording was a prime example of WP:FALSEBALANCE ("Some think X, most think Y"). I have rewritten it and added additional sources to make clear where things stand outside of politics and Twitter echo-chambers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- We're definitely getting into tricky territory here. On the one hand, we need to word it carefully not to give false balance. On the other, it's becoming impossible to ignore that this is a significant minority opinion which merits some level of WP:DUE inclusion. But we also can't go so far at to write it off entirely as conspiracy, misinformation, or politics (unless we can cite a WP:RS determining which basket all these prominent adherents fall into, particularly claims of partisan politics). It's extra tricky because the first way I'd think to address it (describe the rationales for the minority proponents, countered by why they're rejected by the mainstream) increases the word count and gets us back into false balance territory. But we need to figure something out, complete abolition outside the Misinformation article isn't going to fly any longer. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, it's an opinion, perhaps, but it's an unpublished, unreviewed opinion, stated without any qualifiers. It's being reported only in the popular press. Bear in mind that it doesn't actually need to be written off at all, it doesn't need rebuttal, and it doesn't necessarily have to be "conspiracy, misinformation, or politics". The simple fact is that it's basically unverified speculation, sure it may be speculation by experts, but it's still speculation. Redfield and Baltimore don't need to have any sort of bad intentions to simply be wrong, to fall victim to various logical fallacies, especially in off-the-cuff first take opinions. What matters is that when larger groups of people examine this evidence, they determine that the ides of a lab leak is highly unlikely. We should concentrate on the published secondary sources and not unpublished (in the scientific sense) primary opinions and speculation. Hyperion35 (talk)
- My thoughts come primarily from WP:DUE, that this opinion has enough prominent adherents to be worth discussing somewhere on the encyclopedia as a legitimate hypothesis. Certainly not on every page, and definitely with the proper context of the current consensus opinion, but it is DUE a mention. I completely agree, it's probably just a group of people who are used to looking for certain things getting spun up because they found something that can be explained with something that suits their specialty or whatever reason, just the human nature that sees patterns where there are none. But I can't shake that it remains notable that so many are seeing this pattern, and we can't just sweep it under the rug or qualify it all as misinformation or conspiracy (at least not yet). Which is why I'm struggling, the guidelines are at odds, it requires a careful balance between the two, and walking it while hardliners tug in each direction doesn't make for an easy answer. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- My position is that it is unambiguously WP:FRINGE, and given what most sources tell us, we shouldn't present it as an accepted scientific hypothesis (because that is not how scientific sources describe it). That doesn't preclude us adding DUE statements about the generic topic of conspiracy theories about the origins, which are not limited to just the lab leak. How generic or how precise remains open to some discussion, so long we don't fall into the trap of false balance that I identified. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think this continues to be our point of disagreement, that being FRINGE means it's not an acceptable scientific hypothesis. Not widely accepted, otherwise it would be the mainstream view, but I keep going back to the idea that the WHO wouldn't have evaluated a lab accident as their fourth hypothesis if it weren't a valid - but extremely unlikely - science (which is why they didn't consider "deliberate release or deliberate bioengineering"). And this is why I can't support treating all suggestions of accidental release as conspiracy, that would mean that the WHO published a study regarding a conspiracy theory. To put it another way, we have a MEDRS source stating that "a laboratory incident, reflecting an accidental infection of staff from laboratory activities involving the relevant viruses" is a legitimate scientific hypothesis (falsifiable, etc) and need to treat it as such.
- I'd prefer if we kept the discussion to how much of a minority opinion it is, and thus how much weight is due on a given article. I don't think it should be much weight, or on more than one of our articles, but I can't agree with never once mentioning that serious scientists have legitimate reasons they believe this scenario that others believe is 'highly unlikely'. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- So we need to determine how we judge what is DUE and what is UNDUE. Various papers either mention it in passing, sometimes obtusely ("Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence"), sometimes more directly ("Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities." or "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory."). Sometimes it isn't even mentioned (Hu et al. Nat Rev Microbiol, for example). And of course the popular press does mention it, but that shouldn't bear influence on the scientific aspect. The article currently has 2 sentences on it, which seems fine by me: "A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.[103] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[104][105] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[103][88]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- In general I agree, that our current wording is probably about the right amount of weight on this article. The following MEDRS paper from early this month was posted on the Investigations talk page, and might provide a much cleaner citation than Baltimore, Redfield, or other stated opinions.[14] Though it also prompts a rewording, as it's no longer appropriately described as "a few individuals without evidence". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- As was mentioned above on the talk page, that paper appears to have been published in an oncology journal. It is unclear as to why the authors chose to publish in an oncology journal, but it does raise some questions as ti whether the journal was able to perform proper peer review. And additionally, it is still a primary source. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I share your concerns on the author and chosen journal, similar to my concerns about the Baltimore quote published by the Atomic Scientists. Is it a primary source, though? I thought reviews attempting to sum up the state of research were generally considered secondary. It might be wrong, weak, or a number of other things that mean we don't use it, but it does appear to be secondary to me. Personally, I wouldn't want to use it for suggesting the hypothesis is any more likely than the WHO's conclusion, but for use as a descriptor of the reasons why the scientists who ascribe to the hypothesis would decide to do so, and even then we should replace it if a less problematic source can be found. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- As was mentioned above on the talk page, that paper appears to have been published in an oncology journal. It is unclear as to why the authors chose to publish in an oncology journal, but it does raise some questions as ti whether the journal was able to perform proper peer review. And additionally, it is still a primary source. Hyperion35 (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- In general I agree, that our current wording is probably about the right amount of weight on this article. The following MEDRS paper from early this month was posted on the Investigations talk page, and might provide a much cleaner citation than Baltimore, Redfield, or other stated opinions.[14] Though it also prompts a rewording, as it's no longer appropriately described as "a few individuals without evidence". Bakkster Man (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- So we need to determine how we judge what is DUE and what is UNDUE. Various papers either mention it in passing, sometimes obtusely ("Andersen et al. theorize about the virus’ probable origins, emphasizing that the available data argue overwhelmingly against any scientific misconduct or negligence"), sometimes more directly ("Conspiracy theories about a possible accidental leak from either of these laboratories known to be experimenting with bats and bat CoVs that has shown some structural similarity to human SARS-CoV-2 has been suggested, but largely dismissed by most authorities." or "Despite these massive online speculations, scientific evidence does not support this accusation of laboratory release theory."). Sometimes it isn't even mentioned (Hu et al. Nat Rev Microbiol, for example). And of course the popular press does mention it, but that shouldn't bear influence on the scientific aspect. The article currently has 2 sentences on it, which seems fine by me: "A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.[103] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[104][105] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[103][88]" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- My position is that it is unambiguously WP:FRINGE, and given what most sources tell us, we shouldn't present it as an accepted scientific hypothesis (because that is not how scientific sources describe it). That doesn't preclude us adding DUE statements about the generic topic of conspiracy theories about the origins, which are not limited to just the lab leak. How generic or how precise remains open to some discussion, so long we don't fall into the trap of false balance that I identified. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- My thoughts come primarily from WP:DUE, that this opinion has enough prominent adherents to be worth discussing somewhere on the encyclopedia as a legitimate hypothesis. Certainly not on every page, and definitely with the proper context of the current consensus opinion, but it is DUE a mention. I completely agree, it's probably just a group of people who are used to looking for certain things getting spun up because they found something that can be explained with something that suits their specialty or whatever reason, just the human nature that sees patterns where there are none. But I can't shake that it remains notable that so many are seeing this pattern, and we can't just sweep it under the rug or qualify it all as misinformation or conspiracy (at least not yet). Which is why I'm struggling, the guidelines are at odds, it requires a careful balance between the two, and walking it while hardliners tug in each direction doesn't make for an easy answer. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, it's an opinion, perhaps, but it's an unpublished, unreviewed opinion, stated without any qualifiers. It's being reported only in the popular press. Bear in mind that it doesn't actually need to be written off at all, it doesn't need rebuttal, and it doesn't necessarily have to be "conspiracy, misinformation, or politics". The simple fact is that it's basically unverified speculation, sure it may be speculation by experts, but it's still speculation. Redfield and Baltimore don't need to have any sort of bad intentions to simply be wrong, to fall victim to various logical fallacies, especially in off-the-cuff first take opinions. What matters is that when larger groups of people examine this evidence, they determine that the ides of a lab leak is highly unlikely. We should concentrate on the published secondary sources and not unpublished (in the scientific sense) primary opinions and speculation. Hyperion35 (talk)
- We're definitely getting into tricky territory here. On the one hand, we need to word it carefully not to give false balance. On the other, it's becoming impossible to ignore that this is a significant minority opinion which merits some level of WP:DUE inclusion. But we also can't go so far at to write it off entirely as conspiracy, misinformation, or politics (unless we can cite a WP:RS determining which basket all these prominent adherents fall into, particularly claims of partisan politics). It's extra tricky because the first way I'd think to address it (describe the rationales for the minority proponents, countered by why they're rejected by the mainstream) increases the word count and gets us back into false balance territory. But we need to figure something out, complete abolition outside the Misinformation article isn't going to fly any longer. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen it that way. If you can suggest a one sentence addition about said "reasons" it could maybe work, but again it's walking the fine line between DUE/UNDUE as far as the science is concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, it's a fine line. I'll take a pass at this page and see if there's anywhere that makes sense (the Neuropilin-1 + ACE2 + Furin genetics might be the only bit specifically notable to this page), but mostly I'd consider it for the brief description on the Origins page. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- This could possibly work for some of the arguments, but it's not even in a journal (only a page on the publisher's website) so I'm dubious about its suitability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, it's a fine line. I'll take a pass at this page and see if there's anywhere that makes sense (the Neuropilin-1 + ACE2 + Furin genetics might be the only bit specifically notable to this page), but mostly I'd consider it for the brief description on the Origins page. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Choosing a sentence
To move the editing along, let's have a straw poll. Which version of the sentence should be included in the article? Either:
- Option 1. A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute. Or,
- Option 2. A few individuals, including virologist and former Caltech president David Baltimore, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.
Preferences:
- Option 2 is my preference since like other editors have said David Baltimore is the most prominent virologist (given his Nobel prize, virus classification system, and extensive virology lab work) who supports the possibility of a lab origin. He is more prominent than Redfield. He is a good example that there are some individuals in the virology community who support the possible lab origin fringe viewpoint. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could you add which citations you'd use for each? I feel like that's as much an element of the decision as anything. I'd also like to propose a slight tweak to the 'without evidence'. While it's true there's no direct evidence, the current wording could also give the impression they have no rationale behind their belief. Suggested rewordings: "...believe the genetic adaptations of the virus are most easily explained by study of the virus in culture at the Institute, though there is no evidence of this." Or: "...have claimed the genetic adaptations of the virus could have arisen through study of the virus ex vivo at the Institute, though there is no direct evidence of this." Bakkster Man (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why not use "speculate" since it is shorter than "believe without evidence" Forich (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Without evidence" is a stronger and more accurate wording. Amongst other, the paper I cite in the section below (Frutos et al.) has, explicitly, "Therefore, although a laboratory accident can never be definitively excluded, there is currently no evidence to support it." RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why not use "speculate" since it is shorter than "believe without evidence" Forich (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Could you add which citations you'd use for each? I feel like that's as much an element of the decision as anything. I'd also like to propose a slight tweak to the 'without evidence'. While it's true there's no direct evidence, the current wording could also give the impression they have no rationale behind their belief. Suggested rewordings: "...believe the genetic adaptations of the virus are most easily explained by study of the virus in culture at the Institute, though there is no evidence of this." Or: "...have claimed the genetic adaptations of the virus could have arisen through study of the virus ex vivo at the Institute, though there is no direct evidence of this." Bakkster Man (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to make sure we don't give undesired implications with how we use the word 'evidence'. Is their statement truly without any evidence at all (even circumstantial), or just lacking direct evidence? Do we say the same about the cold/food chain which lacks direct evidence? There's no conclusive evidence or direct or intermediary spillover either. I think we can be clear about the weight given these minority/fringe hypotheses, without being overly definitive until we have that definitive conclusion. This is part of why I gave one wording with 'direct evidence'. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Alternatives to consider in order of strength of evidence: "speculate" -> "suspect" -> "believe" -> "suggest". You hit a nail in the head with your point about the circumstantial evidence: it is often disregarded as scientifically invalid, as in Andersen's tweets about the lab leak. In his view, you either have direct evidence or no evidence. I hope we can find a middle ground that reflects that circumstantial evidence is one tiny step better than no evidence. Forich (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- No good evidence? No convincing evidence? No usable evidence? No definitive evidence? No valid evidence? No high-quality evidence? Not enough evidence? Just throwing words around.
- After all, if I take a homeopathic remedy and I get better after that, that is a sort of evidence, but not one that would count in any scientific sense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, my point above was mostly that there's not "definitive evidence" for any of the four WHO-evaluated hypotheses, which is why it's such a topic of debate around here. The only thing the WHO stated conclusively was that the virus probably has an animal reservoir, but even then only seemed to say it was likely bats, hedging that it might just be because of increased bat CoV surveillance post-SARS. Evidence still missing that would be considered definitive include: the human index case, the last pre-human transmission viral strain, and a 'chain of custody' showing the path of transmission from point A in reservoir species to point B in the index case (infection via outdoor contact, food chain, or lab contamination).
- What evidence is "convincing" and "enough" are the points of opinion on which the mainstream and fringe differ. How we explain this is really the question at hand. Mainstream interprets the evidence one way, a minority come to different conclusions. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Alternatives to consider in order of strength of evidence: "speculate" -> "suspect" -> "believe" -> "suggest". You hit a nail in the head with your point about the circumstantial evidence: it is often disregarded as scientifically invalid, as in Andersen's tweets about the lab leak. In his view, you either have direct evidence or no evidence. I hope we can find a middle ground that reflects that circumstantial evidence is one tiny step better than no evidence. Forich (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to make sure we don't give undesired implications with how we use the word 'evidence'. Is their statement truly without any evidence at all (even circumstantial), or just lacking direct evidence? Do we say the same about the cold/food chain which lacks direct evidence? There's no conclusive evidence or direct or intermediary spillover either. I think we can be clear about the weight given these minority/fringe hypotheses, without being overly definitive until we have that definitive conclusion. This is part of why I gave one wording with 'direct evidence'. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Given a choice of the two, I'd rather mention Redfield than Baltimore. Redfield's position at the CDC is really the only reason this is worth mentioning. If it were just Baltimore I'd think it would be ignorable, there's always at least one scientist who will go against scientific consensus, and Nobel laureates are often the ones doing that later in their careers, like Pauling or Margulies. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Didn't express myself on the question, but yeah, CDC position is what makes Redfield mentionable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- My preference is to not mention any individuals supporting the lab leak theory in this article; that material is better suited for Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. (There are transclusions, so the content is unfortunately linked right now). If I had to pick one name, I would go with the CDC director. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thinking things over, I might also prefer Redfield, because he is the former CDC director, and the reader is more familiar with the word former director of CDC than either Baltimore or Redfield. The bigger question, which Forich and Bakkster Man raise, is all the qualifiers that are currently hanging around and on the sentence. Such as the sentence before about right-wing echo chambers, and the sentence having the qualifier "without evidence". What would be good if the two letters "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2" (March 2020) and "Investigate the origins of COVID-19" (May 2021) were used for the two opposing camps. Ironically, the papers are in the opposing journals Nature and Science. The Anderson paper is the majority position (although dated), since it's been cited a couple thousands times, but clearly the fringe lab possibility is represented by the more recent Science paper. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think with some careful wording, we can better separate the fringe scientific views of the Science letter (indicative of a larger community of adherents), from the literal conspiracy theories. The conspiracies are rightly identified as amplified by right-wing media for political purposes. We just need to phrase that in relation to the scientific views so it doesn't give the impression that the WHO-investigated hypothesis was the conspiracy theory. Perhaps moving the conspiracy line to the end of that paragraph? It moves us out of chronological, but makes the conceptual separation more clear, and reduces the weight we place on the conspiracies (we can just say the possibility has been ruled out). Bakkster Man (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Now that we have the Nature open letter, is that a better source to use? Gets us away from naming anyone on the page (list of authors available in the citation), gets us a worthwhile journal citation instead of a MEDPOP one, and avoids the potential UNDUE implications of saying 'this important person believes this'. Their assertion is also less strong than the Baltimore/Redfield one, suggesting it deserves more thorough study, rather than that it's necessarily more likely than not. This might make for a more easily balanced sentence. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I support replacing Redfield with the Science letter (is it Science or Nature, I believe you refer to Science). The authors "call for further inquiry into origins of the coronavirus" which echoes previous calls from US and WHO, as User: RandomCanadian also suggests here. Forich (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also support the substitution of Redfield with the Science article. The current paragraph is:
- Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] Early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,[103] amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right.[104] A few individuals, including former CDC director Robert R. Redfield, have claimed, without evidence, that the virus may have been studied by and escaped from the Institute.[105] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]
- Proposed new paragraph:
- Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] A few individuals, including a small minority of virologists, have proposed that both an animal origin and an accidental escape of a virus from a lab are feasible hypotheses and should both be investigated.[15] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]
- I also support the substitution of Redfield with the Science article. The current paragraph is:
- This form of the paragraph is neutral and limits the politics of the paragraph. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's worth remembering that the lab-leak origin being discussed as a 'feasible hypothesis' remains (in a way) an animal origin. As the WHO report makes clear, intentional engineering of the virus has been ruled out. So I think we need to be more clear on that.
- I think we should step back and ask: 1) What do the citable sources say? 2) What do we think is worthwhile and DUE for this article? My take:
- Original reservoir from animals, likely bats.
- Precise origin and pathway uncertain, investigations continue.
- Origin is politically contentious.
- Mainstream considers laboratory-leak origin "extremely unlikely".
- From there, it's what to do with the fringe. Do we even mention it here beyond the above points? Do we dismiss it entirely as politically motivated or not evidence-based (IMO, inaccurate), say they weight the available evidence differently (UNDUE weight potential here), or simply leave the rationale for another article? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I support replacing Redfield with the Science letter (is it Science or Nature, I believe you refer to Science). The authors "call for further inquiry into origins of the coronavirus" which echoes previous calls from US and WHO, as User: RandomCanadian also suggests here. Forich (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I join Forich and Guest2625 in supporting Bakkster Man's proposal to replace the Redfield quote with the Science letter. I agree also to Bakkster Man's four point breakout of the Science letter, but I would add the author's concern that the two predominant theories were not given balanced consideration.Mysticriver1 (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think the 'deserves more consideration' is probably the right way to phrase the letter, and is probably language that most will agree is WP:DUE. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should mention it the way the letter says it.Mysticriver1 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, for reference that was "the two theories were not given balanced consideration". Bakkster Man (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think we should mention it the way the letter says it.Mysticriver1 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks.Mysticriver1 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- A practical solution to the Undue issue can be this: allocate 1 sentence to lab leak, 1 sentence to frozen food, 2 paragraphs to intermediate jump, 3 paragraphs to direct zoonosis fron bats. The 1 sentence allocated to lab leak requires surgical writing prowess, though. Forich (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I propose the following new revised paragraph:
- A. Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] A few individuals, including some virologists, have proposed that both an animal origin and an accidental escape of a virus from a lab are viable hypotheses and should both be investigated.[16] The lab origin hypothesis assumes the escape of an unpublished natural virus studied at a lab or a strain evolved further in a lab environment of imposed evolutionary pressure.[17][18][19] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]
This version of the paragraph adds an extra sentence on the lab thing which is about the right amount of material to include in this article on a non-majority hypothesis. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why remove the mentions about actual bollocks? I say one sentence for conspiracy theories in general (to note their existence) and one sentence about the lab leak (as a "possibility about which some have called for more investigation", sourced to the Science letter and newspaper reports of it; not with any of the NON-MEDRS sources [already discussed multiple times over] you present). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's another version of the paragraph:
- B. Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[101] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[102] A few individuals, including some virologists, have proposed that both an animal origin and an accidental escape of a virus from a lab are viable hypotheses and should both be investigated.[20] There is no available evidence for the the lab origin hypothesis, which assumes the escape of an unpublished natural virus studied at a lab or a strain evolved further in a lab environment of imposed evolutionary pressure.[21][22][23] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[106][107] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[105][88]
This version includes the statement about the lack of available evidence. With this clause the sentence does have a better transition so perhaps is better. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps there's room to distinguish further? Nearly everyone agrees that further study is required. Whether phrased as finding the definitive origin or ruling out the theory, it's the broadest agreement we have. Should we split that from the minority opinion(s)? Specifically: 1) the lab hypothesis is more likely than others, contrary to the WHO's conclusion, or 2) existing investigations have been performed in an unacceptable manner. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Science opinion letter
The current article strongly supports the zoonotic origin theory, relying on the WHO report to call the lab accident hypothesis "extremely unlikely." Today a new letter came out from 18 scientists published as a letter to the journal of Science calls this evaluation not a "balanced consideration" and that both zoonotic and lab leak remain viable: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/origins-covid-19-need-be-investigated-further-leading-scientists-say-2021-05-14/
Not mentioned in this article, but found elsewhere in places like the Wades article, are serious critiques that the WHO report was tainted by serious conflict of interest.
The article should be updated to reflect a more balanced take and not just rely on the WHO report to call the lab leak "extremely unlikely." When I look at the evidence currently, the lab leak explanation is becoming the more parsimonious explanation. Spudst3r (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is a non-peer-reviewed letter from several scientists. It is nowhere near the same, jn terms of sourcing, as the WHO report. See MEDRS, please. Also, the letter does not even support a "lab leak" hypothesis, it simply asks for more investigation. But again, it is not peer-reviewed. It is the opinion of a couple of scientists, but they do not show ther work. As for potential COI, please make sure that you fully understand what constitutes COI. And in terms of what yiu see when you look at the evidence, see WP:OR. Also, please consider that if you are not an expert in the field, you should probably take a step back and take some time to familiarize yourself with the research and understand why the current scientific consensus for a wild zoonotic episode exists. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- The opinion letter is a WP:PRIMARY piece for the opinion of its authors. They are, at the very best, a very small scientific minority (the other end of the scale is them being nothing more than a routine conspiracy theory grounded in geopolitics and blame-shifting). If you're not happy with the WHO report, we can cite about half a dozen other high-quality sources (some of which do cite the WHO report, showing it is an acceptable source) which say the same thing - see WP:NOLABLEAK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, not a useful source when we have decent WP:MEDRS ones. The fact that some people have tried an end run around the normal scientific process to do a letter if anything sets the seal on the very fringe-iness of it - similar "open letter" sources are available (and of course have been pushed here on en.wiki) for climate change denial, cryonics, etc. So in short, let's continue to follow the best sources and keep it simple! Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- The opinion letter is a WP:PRIMARY piece for the opinion of its authors. They are, at the very best, a very small scientific minority (the other end of the scale is them being nothing more than a routine conspiracy theory grounded in geopolitics and blame-shifting). If you're not happy with the WHO report, we can cite about half a dozen other high-quality sources (some of which do cite the WHO report, showing it is an acceptable source) which say the same thing - see WP:NOLABLEAK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are several secondary sources, namely a NYT and Wall Street journal pieces and countless more. The inclusion is important because it provides more context and the debate in the field. Currently, the page makes it seem like no one supports the idea of a zoonotic origin followed by a lab spillover, but there is support for its validity. WP:FRINGE itself states that The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. No MEDRS source rules out this possibility or considered it impossible, and several authorities in the field consider it viable.
- Currently, the article accept as gospel the word of the WHO, but a neutral point of view must include also those scientists who disagree or are skeptical of the WHO. The fact that there are such opinions in the field cannot be left out. Eccekevin (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's clear it's "supported" (odd concept) by conspiracy theorists and politically-motivated amateurs online, per the cited sources. As a possibility, it's "valid" in the sense it's possible but extremely unlikely. The sources say these things so Wikipedia does too. If you want to undercut the WHO, you need a decent source, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that is the issue. Currently, this Wikipedia page does not include any information on the Science letter or any of the other high-profile scientists who disagree with the WHO. Eccekevin (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- If there are scholarly secondary sources showing this is due (i.e. that discuss "the letter"), then that may be possible. But if such sources are ignoring it and it's only getting traction in lay press - then no. There will always be rogue scientists. Alexbrn (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is Alina Chan really a prominent scientist? This article is not for a blow-by-blow account of leak claims and calls for investigation, that should be in Investigations into the origins of COVID-19. This is a brief summary paragraph that the lab leak claims are considered unlikely by the majority of scientists, including the letter is getting into the weeds. There are thousands of researchers who have worked on COVID-19, why do these 16 matter in particular? Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- In any case since "the letter" says "we agree with the WHO director-general", I'm not even sure how it's being seen as some kind of challenge to the prevailing opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- They agree with the WHO insofar as both possibilities "are viable" and must be "taken seriously". The issue is that this is not reflected by the page. Eccekevin (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- We say it's extremely unlikely per the best sources. Come back when/if similar weighty sources pick this letter up. Per the general sanctions for this topic (which you are now are of) we should not be using non-MEDRS/non-peer-reviewed scientific content. Meanwhile, I see there a discussion about whether it might be due in the Investigations into the origins of COVID-19 article. Alexbrn (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that you do so by using an article like this one, which is from a single scientist from Indonesia in Reviews in Medical Virology (a journal so unknown it does not even have a Wiki page) and a bunch of 2020 papers who are severely outdated, while a letter on Science (which is edited by the editors of Science which are no fools) by many famous scientists is completely disregarded. I don't argue against the fact that it is a minority viewpoint, but indeed it has to be treated as such, instead of treating it like a conspiracy theory as it is now, without even mentioning the support it has. You say on the page that most scientists dismiss it, but then you refuse to aknowledge those who support it. Eccekevin (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- We say it's extremely unlikely per the best sources. Come back when/if similar weighty sources pick this letter up. Per the general sanctions for this topic (which you are now are of) we should not be using non-MEDRS/non-peer-reviewed scientific content. Meanwhile, I see there a discussion about whether it might be due in the Investigations into the origins of COVID-19 article. Alexbrn (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- They agree with the WHO insofar as both possibilities "are viable" and must be "taken seriously". The issue is that this is not reflected by the page. Eccekevin (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- In any case since "the letter" says "we agree with the WHO director-general", I'm not even sure how it's being seen as some kind of challenge to the prevailing opinion. Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that is the issue. Currently, this Wikipedia page does not include any information on the Science letter or any of the other high-profile scientists who disagree with the WHO. Eccekevin (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's clear it's "supported" (odd concept) by conspiracy theorists and politically-motivated amateurs online, per the cited sources. As a possibility, it's "valid" in the sense it's possible but extremely unlikely. The sources say these things so Wikipedia does too. If you want to undercut the WHO, you need a decent source, not journalism. Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's the problem. Saying pmid:33586302 is "from a single scientist from Indonesia" (why does the country matter, hmmm? Does it in some way nullify Hakim's virology expertise?[24]) rather swerves round the facts that:
- This is a review article surveying the work of others rather than advancing novel research
- Is peer-reviewed
- Is from a virology journal, so is completely on-point
- The journal, far, from being "obscure" is well-established with a solid impact factor
- And is of course MEDLINE-indexed[25]
In short, one of our WP:BESTSOURCES. So implying this is a poor source seems like trying to warp reality to fit an agenda (rather in keeping with the whole lab leak thing). So long as we properly reflect golden sources like this, we are being good editors. Alexbrn (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- That review article dedicates only one paragraph to the accidental lab leak, and does not really even address is properly. The only data is brings forth is this study (cited as 87) SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories that says it has a natural origin, but that is not being contested nor is in opposition with the accidental lab leak hypothesis. AS the Science letter says, it is perfectly possible to have a natural origin, been studied in a lab, and then been accidentally released from that lab. The review that you say is your "best source" talks about it and say that there have been accidental releases in the past but now there are stringent measures. That's it. It doesn't really provide anymore evidence against it, other than that the Chinese say that none of the lab workers have contracted the virus. This review surely isn't your best source, because if it is it is quite a poor one. Eccekevin (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I set out the reasons why it's a good source, the fact that it doesn't align with the POV a random Wikipedia editor wants to push doesn't figure in that evaluation. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- You're always free to take a stroll at WP:NOLABLEAK and look at the sources there. We don't criticise reliable sources, we report what they say. If the vast majority of MEDRS say "the lab leak is extremely unlikely" or "the virus almost certainly has a zoonotic origin", then that's what we write, without unduly legitimising FRINGE positions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- That review article dedicates only one paragraph to the accidental lab leak, and does not really even address is properly. The only data is brings forth is this study (cited as 87) SARS-CoV-2, Covid-19, and the debunking of conspiracy theories that says it has a natural origin, but that is not being contested nor is in opposition with the accidental lab leak hypothesis. AS the Science letter says, it is perfectly possible to have a natural origin, been studied in a lab, and then been accidentally released from that lab. The review that you say is your "best source" talks about it and say that there have been accidental releases in the past but now there are stringent measures. That's it. It doesn't really provide anymore evidence against it, other than that the Chinese say that none of the lab workers have contracted the virus. This review surely isn't your best source, because if it is it is quite a poor one. Eccekevin (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, that isn't the only source. Just a second strong MEDRS source on top of the WHO study. A study, it should be pointed out, said that continued investigations would be required, which the WHO DG agreed with and reinforced, and the the Science letter says they agree with him. But that doesn't change the current mainstream view. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that's exactly the problem. I never questioned that it's the majority viewpoint. I question the deliberate exclusion of any other viewpoint. Scientific analysis of the genome of the virus can only determine a zoonotic origin, but cannot determine whether it jumped from bats to humans in the nature of because of a lab spillover. Your own BESTSOURCE says as much and concludes that However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Hence, this is more an investigation/political question than a scientific/genomic one. And given the many calls of skepticism for the past joint WHO-China investigation and the many scientistic speaking out (particularly in the Science letter but in many other places too), Wikiepdia should reflect the fact that many experts in the field consider both options viable and do not dismiss them as strongly as the current wording of the page suggests. Eccekevin (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- And now we're back to the topic regarding how much discussion of the minority possibilities are WP:DUE for this article, versus how much is WP:DUE on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, including a sandboxed update attempting to better describe the fours hypotheses including this alternative. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think the sandboxed update is excellent. Most importantly, I think it importantly lays out the distinction between the "Deliberate bioengineering of the virus" and "the possibility of a collected and studied virus inadvertently spilling out". This is a fundamental distinction since they are two completely different hypotheses (the former has no scientitic support and does not include a zoonotic origin, the latter has those scientists who consider it viable and does invlude a zoonotic origin). Eccekevin (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I get the distinction. But the problem remains that there isn't really any evidence for even that version of the "lab leak" hypothesis beyond "there is a laboratory in Wuhan". While the lab does research on bat coronaviruses, there is no evidence that they were studying SARS-COV-2. The initial outbreak was not centered on the laboratory. SARS-COV-2 has many differences from the SARS coronaviruses that were being studied. Even the lack of cooperation from China and their government's insistence on controlling information isn't actually evidence in favor of this hypothesis, because the PRC is governed by a single authoritarian political party with zero traditions of openness and transparency. The best that our sources can say is that more research is needed, and if you can find me a single medical paper, any medical paper, punlished any time in the past half-century, on any topic, that does not say "more research is needed", then I might grrant that phrase a level of valid consideration. Meanwhile the zoonotic spillover hypothesis basically says that SARS-COV-2 emerged in a manner similar to SARS-COV-1 and MERS. This explanation requires the fewest unsupported assumptions. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a bit less absolute on the level of evidence. I tend to see it less as a lack of evidence (broadly speaking, including 'reasons to look more closely'), and more as a lack of strong and reliable sourcing describing why one camp sees the virus genome as more likely to be a result of growth in culture. With the closest being the In Vivo review, not a virology journal but hypothetically explaining the circumstantial evidence these scientists coming to the alternate conclusion are basing that call on. And again, it doesn't change my read on the likelihood or fringe status of the lab hypothesis, just whether we claim there's "no evidence" or "circumstantial evidence". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of definitive evidence is somehow already covered by expressions like "extremely unlikely". Considerations about the genome are surely the most relevant to this article and aren't on the same plane as twitter conspiracy theories or probably inappropriate statements by prominent figures on the popular press, but require good sources. In the sandbox addressing every hypotesis helps to avoid giving too much stress on the lab leak, but it may be too lenghty for this article. On a side note: wouldn't it make more sense to transclude from Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 here, rather than the other way around? Personuser (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The sandbox is intended for the origin investigation article, I agree it wouldn't fit here. As for which direction we transclude, maybe but this article existed before that one, so probably just path dependency. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- The lack of definitive evidence is somehow already covered by expressions like "extremely unlikely". Considerations about the genome are surely the most relevant to this article and aren't on the same plane as twitter conspiracy theories or probably inappropriate statements by prominent figures on the popular press, but require good sources. In the sandbox addressing every hypotesis helps to avoid giving too much stress on the lab leak, but it may be too lenghty for this article. On a side note: wouldn't it make more sense to transclude from Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 here, rather than the other way around? Personuser (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm a bit less absolute on the level of evidence. I tend to see it less as a lack of evidence (broadly speaking, including 'reasons to look more closely'), and more as a lack of strong and reliable sourcing describing why one camp sees the virus genome as more likely to be a result of growth in culture. With the closest being the In Vivo review, not a virology journal but hypothetically explaining the circumstantial evidence these scientists coming to the alternate conclusion are basing that call on. And again, it doesn't change my read on the likelihood or fringe status of the lab hypothesis, just whether we claim there's "no evidence" or "circumstantial evidence". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I get the distinction. But the problem remains that there isn't really any evidence for even that version of the "lab leak" hypothesis beyond "there is a laboratory in Wuhan". While the lab does research on bat coronaviruses, there is no evidence that they were studying SARS-COV-2. The initial outbreak was not centered on the laboratory. SARS-COV-2 has many differences from the SARS coronaviruses that were being studied. Even the lack of cooperation from China and their government's insistence on controlling information isn't actually evidence in favor of this hypothesis, because the PRC is governed by a single authoritarian political party with zero traditions of openness and transparency. The best that our sources can say is that more research is needed, and if you can find me a single medical paper, any medical paper, punlished any time in the past half-century, on any topic, that does not say "more research is needed", then I might grrant that phrase a level of valid consideration. Meanwhile the zoonotic spillover hypothesis basically says that SARS-COV-2 emerged in a manner similar to SARS-COV-1 and MERS. This explanation requires the fewest unsupported assumptions. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think the sandboxed update is excellent. Most importantly, I think it importantly lays out the distinction between the "Deliberate bioengineering of the virus" and "the possibility of a collected and studied virus inadvertently spilling out". This is a fundamental distinction since they are two completely different hypotheses (the former has no scientitic support and does not include a zoonotic origin, the latter has those scientists who consider it viable and does invlude a zoonotic origin). Eccekevin (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- And now we're back to the topic regarding how much discussion of the minority possibilities are WP:DUE for this article, versus how much is WP:DUE on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, including a sandboxed update attempting to better describe the fours hypotheses including this alternative. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- But that's exactly the problem. I never questioned that it's the majority viewpoint. I question the deliberate exclusion of any other viewpoint. Scientific analysis of the genome of the virus can only determine a zoonotic origin, but cannot determine whether it jumped from bats to humans in the nature of because of a lab spillover. Your own BESTSOURCE says as much and concludes that However, an independent forensic investigation is probably the only course of action to prove or disprove this speculation. Hence, this is more an investigation/political question than a scientific/genomic one. And given the many calls of skepticism for the past joint WHO-China investigation and the many scientistic speaking out (particularly in the Science letter but in many other places too), Wikiepdia should reflect the fact that many experts in the field consider both options viable and do not dismiss them as strongly as the current wording of the page suggests. Eccekevin (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, that isn't the only source. Just a second strong MEDRS source on top of the WHO study. A study, it should be pointed out, said that continued investigations would be required, which the WHO DG agreed with and reinforced, and the the Science letter says they agree with him. But that doesn't change the current mainstream view. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- I want to add a bit more explanation to Alexbrn's excellent answer. This is one situation where Wikipedia's policies reflect how these questions are answered in the real world as well. While MEDRS and BESTSOURCES tell us what to do, I am concerned that some of the disagreement here may reflect a lack of understanding why we do it this way. To be clear, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are the what matters in terms of what we put into the article, but I can also see how these standards might seem arbitrary to non-professionals, and so I want illustrate how healthcare professionals approach this. It's a bit long, so I'll make it collapsible to save space.
long explanation
|
---|
A few years back, my agency decided to make some changes to regulations surrounding opioid (and other substances of abuse) treatment. Now, there is no lack of popular news coverage of the opioid epidemic, but we did not consult that. While it was of great public interest, it simply lacked serious depth, preferring to interview individuals rather than presenting any sort of serious statistical or cost-benefit analyses. What few interviews they had with professionals didn't require them to qualify or quantify their comments or show their work, and they rarely gave any information about whether a given professional's opinions represented a majority view or if they were a lone crank. Individual papers on opioids are a dime a dozen. They range all over the place in quality and findings. I even came across a (non-peer-reviewed) study that purported to show that laws expanding the distribution, possession, and use of naloxone correlated to an increase in opioid deaths (spoiler: it was horribly flawed). You could easily come up with dozens of different and mutually-exclusive proposals based on which individual primary-source paper that you could find. Suboxone? Buprenorphine-only? Methadone? Cold turkey? Do you want to play paper roulette with thousands of lives on the line? We instead looked at reviews published in the relevant journals in the field (ie secondary sources), and had our CMO look over them (which might make it a tertiary source), and this narrowed our approach dramatically, giving us a better idea of what treatment options would lead to the best outcomes, which were first line, second line, contraindications, etc. But that wasn't quite enough, because in a field this complicated you need a better idea of how to translate those findings into clinical practice, and so we consulted with the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM), and consulted with them about their treatment guidelines. They had an excellent scale to allow physicians to classify a patient's addiction level, and recommendations for treatment based on those levels (ie outpatient medication management, short inpatient treatment, intensive inpatient treatment, etc). |
- My point is that this decision tree is a good example of how MEDRS is based on real-world usage, and why experts generally prefer expert evidence-based guidelines from relevant organizations (such as the WHO report in this article) as the best source of information, and peer-reviewed secondary reviews from specialty journals (like the study Alexbrn mentions) as the next-best thing. When professionals like Alexbrn or myself are saying that some sources are better than others, and some sources are all but useless, it is not because we like or dislike what they are saying. We are not just playing around to put a specific spin on the article or to dismiss your views. It is because in the real world, when you are making serious decisions, this is how you evaluate the available evidence. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
- An even more thorough explanation can be found here: WP:WHYMEDRS. And I want to add, regarding the opinion letter, that pretty much all scientific methodology, from double blinding to peer review, is designed to prevent the opinions of the scientists doing the studies from colouring their results. Opinions of scientists are not a source of truth, they are a source of bias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- By requiring WP:MEDRS for evidence of the lab leak theory the prevailing wiki editors are using a sleight of hand. Whether the virus was leaked or not from the lab is an orthogonal question to the one of whether it has a zoonotic evolutionary origin. Promoters of the lab leak theory don't doubt the virus has a zoonotic origin, they just suggest that the intermediate host was humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute. The actual question of a lab leak is not even scientific in nature about the structure/biology of the virus itself, but an operational one. Spudst3r (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Two thoughts on this. First is that, in general, we do treat this orthogonal point of commonality that way. Almost everyone agrees, the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 is a virus with an animal reservoir. The pathway from there to humans is debated, but not that it's zoonotic.
- Second, I'm curious that you say
The actual question of a lab leak is not even scientific in nature about the structure/biology of the virus itself
, since lab theory proponents primarily point to structural elements of the virus as evidence that its evolution was due to growth in lab culture. And those kinds of claims (for instance, that ACE2 most likely came from culture) absolutely need MEDRS. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)- I agree there, claims around the furin cleavage require MEDRS. But other areas of the circumstantial evidence, like the lab's weak BSL-2 lab security are certainly operational points. Wuhan's lack of proximity to the local bat population or evidence of local infection nearby, the lack of hospital surveillance logs for the virus before Nov 2019, the timelines for MERS/SARS finding intermediate hosts vs COVID, and not being able to find the virus after testing 80,000 animals are not complex biology/health claims that require MEDRS. They are investigatory facts of the present situation. As there is no smoking gun yet for either the lab leak or natural origin claim, the article should reflect the fact that the evidence supporting both hypothesis still remain circumstantial -- and let the reader decide by giving an appropriate discussion of the available evidence for the different hypothesis.Spudst3r (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Nearly there. It's not for us to analyse the evidence and decide what the article needs to say. We need to follow the best sources on the matter. Given that the origin of a human infection is a complex issue, I would agree that it's something best left to the experts who have spent their life studying the topic, and not the journalists. WP:RS seems to head in this direction to: whether you think MEDRS applies or not, that should still be the standard we use. See WP:SOURCETYPES: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." and WP:NEWSORG: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." - whether the origin of the virus is a biomedical claim or not, it's still an academic topic. And the best sources, as documented at WP:NOLABLEAK, don't give equal validity to both theories. We can note the minimal dissent about this, without unduly legitimising it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
BSL-2 lab security
sounds biomedical to me.Wuhan's lack of proximity to the local bat population or evidence of local infection nearby
both are biomedical issues.lack of hospital surveillance logs for the virus
This is literally a claim about a medical facility and medical records.the timelines for MERS/SARS finding intermediate hosts vs COVID
You mean virology?not being able to find the virus after testing 80,000 animals
I mean maybe you could count this as zoology, but seriously now how is viral testing not biomedical?the article should reflect the fact that the evidence supporting both hypothesis still remain circumstantial -- and let the reader decide by giving an appropriate discussion of the available evidence for the different hypothesis
Except that's not what the sources say. The best sources that we have explicitly say that a lab leak is extremely unlikely, they are clear about a zoonotic spillover event. This is the same special pleading I'd expect to hear from Creationists, the same "teach the controversy" and "let people decide on their own" canards. Hyperion35 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- In addition to broadly agreeing with the above comments that these items are more accurately described biomedical in nature (and even if not, scholarly secondary sources remain best to prioritize with information so contentious), I'd like to note that these suggestions seem to support putting WP:UNDUE weight on (as you said) circumstantial evidence. While I am in favor of making clear that advocates for the minority position (and it is a minority position) have rational reasons for believing it is a likely explanation, I don't think we should spend more time explaining these pieces of circumstantial evidence than the mainstream perspective. And if we do explain specific details, I'd suggest it go in Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Investigations where some of these pieces of evidence are already discussed, instead of this page (again, being careful not to unbalance the text and be UNDUE). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree there, claims around the furin cleavage require MEDRS. But other areas of the circumstantial evidence, like the lab's weak BSL-2 lab security are certainly operational points. Wuhan's lack of proximity to the local bat population or evidence of local infection nearby, the lack of hospital surveillance logs for the virus before Nov 2019, the timelines for MERS/SARS finding intermediate hosts vs COVID, and not being able to find the virus after testing 80,000 animals are not complex biology/health claims that require MEDRS. They are investigatory facts of the present situation. As there is no smoking gun yet for either the lab leak or natural origin claim, the article should reflect the fact that the evidence supporting both hypothesis still remain circumstantial -- and let the reader decide by giving an appropriate discussion of the available evidence for the different hypothesis.Spudst3r (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- By requiring WP:MEDRS for evidence of the lab leak theory the prevailing wiki editors are using a sleight of hand. Whether the virus was leaked or not from the lab is an orthogonal question to the one of whether it has a zoonotic evolutionary origin. Promoters of the lab leak theory don't doubt the virus has a zoonotic origin, they just suggest that the intermediate host was humanized mice in the Wuhan Institute. The actual question of a lab leak is not even scientific in nature about the structure/biology of the virus itself, but an operational one. Spudst3r (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- An even more thorough explanation can be found here: WP:WHYMEDRS. And I want to add, regarding the opinion letter, that pretty much all scientific methodology, from double blinding to peer review, is designed to prevent the opinions of the scientists doing the studies from colouring their results. Opinions of scientists are not a source of truth, they are a source of bias. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Citation(s) for the lab-leak origin hypothesis (currently tagged [citation needed])
Informal hatting: as I began the below discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't have my 500 edits yet, so I'm here to suggest some citations to use at the [citation needed] around the laboratory-leak hypothesis.
I'm not here to debate the origins of the virus, just to try to improve the quality of a couple of sentences, so please bear with me without biting my head off. I think we can all agree that the article would be improved if the following sentence gets its citation:
- A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, without direct evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[citation needed]
Now, this sentence is combining two different things: 1) claims by virologists that the virus likely leaked from the Institute, and 2) calls for further investigations into the matter. The former is indeed restricted to a minority of virologists; but the latter has been called for by the WHO Director-General (Tedros):
- The team also visited several laboratories in Wuhan and considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy." WHO Director-General, in comments on the WHO's March 2021 report.
Given this, the above-quoted sentence should be divided in two: 1) a small number of virologists have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, and 2) some, including the WHO Director-General, have called for more extensive investigations into the possibility of a laboratory leak origin.
For (1), the few scientists who have supported the laboratory leak hypothesis, I suggest the following citations:
- A primary source: the Nicholas Wade article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (May 5, 2021), which quotes former CDC director Robert Redfield and Nobel Laureate David Baltimore supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis.
- Secondary source: the May 17 Washington Post editorial which cites the Nicholas Wade article, among others.
To be clear: I'm aware that this is not peer-reviewed science. I am aware that Nicholas Wade and Robert Redfield have had some unsavory views. But we're just looking for a citation about "some scientists supporting the laboratory leak hypothesis."
Now, for (2): some have called for further investigation into the laboratory leak possibility:
Primary sources of calls for further investigation:
- WHO Director-General being quite explicit in the above quote;
- an EU statement and a joint statement from 14 countries, including the US, UK, Canada, Japan, and South Korea, both expressing support for Tedros's concerns, though these do not explicitly mention the laboratory leak hypothesis.
- The Science letter [26]. (The objections I've read above are based on the idea that a "letter" is just an opinion of a few scientists, without peer review. That's not entirely accurate - the editors of Science considered it credible enough to publish it. I'm not here to debate the merit of the hypotheses, just to suggest citations for "calls for further investigation." I think a Letter in Science fits the bill.)
Secondary sources covering the above calls:
- the New York Times article based on the Science letter, with further context and statements from the scientists involved;
- an April 7 New York Times article which includes Tedros's comments about the WHO report; and
- the Washington Post's May 17 editorial supporting the "both theories remain viable and must be investigated" position of the Science letter.
Given all of the above, I propose the following replacement:
A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, without direct evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[citation needed] [...] the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[95][75]
to
- A small number of scientists have supported a hypothesis that the virus escaped from the research laboratories of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[[27] The WHO, in its March 2021 report, considers a laboratory origin "extremely unlikely", although the WHO Director-General expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of the assessment, and called for further investigation.
My apologies if this draft sounds too pro-lab-leak; I have attempted to simply write a version which tells the bare facts. You (the more experienced editors) are obviously welcome to edit as appropriate. SSSheridan (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I am concerned that "expressed dissatisfactoon with the extent of the assessment" makes it sound as though he disagrees with the conclusion that a lab leak was unlikely. It was my understanding that Tedros agrees with the conclusion that a leak was "extremely unlikely", he was simply calling for more investigation. As you say, it is important to distinguish beteeen those ideas. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've added some of the suggested citations (minus the piece by Wade and the op-eds in the WaPo, since op-eds are rarely a useful source) since that was what I was looking for and couldn't be bothered to search yesterday. The suggestion about Tedros expressing "dissatisfaction with the assessment" is misleading, since what he seems to have been calling for is indeed more investigation, and that matches the other sources (some governments, ...). I think the current text gives sufficient weight to this idea, without giving it undue legitimacy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Cheers, looks better now. Two quibbles about the comments above:
- Hyperion35: the Tedros comment did not, in fact, agree (nor explicitly disagree) with the "extremely unlikely" conclusion. "Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy."
- RandomCanadian: I don't disagree with the choice to exclude the WaPo editorial, but I would point out the distinction between an op-ed, written by one person and published as part of a diversity of opinions, vs an editorial, which is the consensus opinion of the paper's editorial board. This editorial would have had the Post's qualified science reporters involved.
- I agree that my "dissatisfaction with the assessment" wording (while literally true) granted undue legitimacy. On the other hand, in my (hopefully well-considered) opinion, the current wording does not grant sufficient weight. The current wording says "a few individuals" but then, as a citation, cites Tedros. Furthermore, the current sentence positions the March 2021 report ("extremely unlikely") as a response to such calls for further investigation, whereas, in fact, Tedros's call for further investigation was in direct response to said March 2021 report.
- I am not pro-lab-leak (and I have all my fingers crossed that the virus did not originate in a lab), but at the same time, the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty. Apropos to this particular article, I can't see the current wording being a fair representation of our current state of certainty.
- (I hope it is clear that the lab leak hypothesis does not mean deliberate bioweapon engineering, just a poorly considered experiment followed by an ordinary instance of imperfect sterile technique. Plausible? That's not for me to say, but the editors of Science did decide to run the letter written by non-fringe "scientists with relevant expertise.")
- I would point to Derek Lowes's May 19 post, not as a citation for Wikipedia, but just as a responsible take on the topic given what we know. "So it’s all an open question, unfortunately. And I think it’s important for people to realize that it’s an open question, and that we need a lot more hard evidence before anything can be said for certain."
- The profile of those expressing "both hypotheses remain viable" has risen since a couple of months ago. The current wording does not reflect that change. I understand the total shitstorm that could result from irresponsible discussion of the possibility. However, that possibility has been published in Science and other outlets. Wikipedia should try to avoid being misleading, which I find the current wording to be. SSSheridan (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- What does "The profile ... has risen" even mean? Sure, political agitprop (particularly in the USA) has increased and some scientists are making a fuss (as with minority positions in most science controversies) but in the best RS that has been no shift. Saying "both hypotheses remain viable" without any mention of likelihood as put forth by our best sources, would be economical with the truth of what those sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect it's referring to the difference between last year's open letter denouncing any suggestion of the lab leak by scientists, and now when it's at least acknowledged as an unlikely possibility. But these pages have undergone a significant change in tone this year which reflects that, particularly with the WHO report evaluating an accidental lab release. We now mention it (with DUE weight), whereas in January it was not mentioned at all. So I disagree that
The current wording does not reflect that change
, unless SSSheridan can give a specific example. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- Well, the current Wikipedia wording says "a few individuals... called for further investigation...the March 2021 WHO report...stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely"." Whereas, the words that I've found on www.who.int say the exact opposite order: the March 2021 WHO report stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely," but the WHO Director-General said, in direct response to that report, "The team also... considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation."
- I'm not here trying to create trouble, so please don't make me spell out how "a few individuals have called for further investigation... the WHO report says this is 'extremely unlikely'" is not a fair representation of "the WHO report says this is 'extremely unlikely'...the WHO Director-General said of that specific claim, 'I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough...this requires further investigation." I'm not trying to spread conspiracy theories. I don't want the lab leak hypothesis to be true. My problem is that the current wording just plain doesn't represent what has been said.
- You allude to due/undue weight. To quote WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The viewpoint in question: further investigation is needed before ruling out laboratory leak. Prominent adherent: Tedros. I'm not taking things him of context. (Check the context, please, if you have doubts.) SSSheridan (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that the Tedros statement, in context, makes him an adherent of the lab leak hypothesis. At least, that it's a likely explanation. The beginning context doesn't seem to suggest specific issues with this conclusion, only that (like all the conclusions) they can (and should) be strengthened with further info:
I welcome your report, which advances our understanding in important ways. It also raises further questions that will need to be addressed by further studies, as the team itself notes in the report.
I'd actually argue the opposite, that Tedros was being savvy in criticizing China's lack of openness for being unable to rule out this possibility. Or, to be more specific here, the Tedros comment doesn't change that the natural origin is considered the most likely explanation by the mainstream. - However, there are multiple other prominent adherents who were explicit in their support (both the Science letter and otherwise), so IMO we needn't reference Tedros on this as we have cleaner justification for this being a significant minority view worthy of mention. The 'prominent adherent' comment is specifically regarding this:
To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
So we've already cleared that second bar, this is a view that early this year was not considered significant enough ('a tiny minority') to even mention on the article, and now it is. So it's a finer question of how we word it so as not to make it appear more prominent than it is. IMO we mostly do this well, by placing it as the contrarian opinion to the mainstream. - So to sum it up, the best sources continue to say that the lab leak is unlikely and should be phrased as such against the mainstream position that it's 'zoonosis in a natural setting'. The focus should be on how we phrase that contrarian view (ie. is "a few individuals" appropriate weight). Bakkster Man (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree that the Tedros statement, in context, makes him an adherent of the lab leak hypothesis. At least, that it's a likely explanation. The beginning context doesn't seem to suggest specific issues with this conclusion, only that (like all the conclusions) they can (and should) be strengthened with further info:
- I suspect it's referring to the difference between last year's open letter denouncing any suggestion of the lab leak by scientists, and now when it's at least acknowledged as an unlikely possibility. But these pages have undergone a significant change in tone this year which reflects that, particularly with the WHO report evaluating an accidental lab release. We now mention it (with DUE weight), whereas in January it was not mentioned at all. So I disagree that
the certainty with which it has been rejected is quite galling to my old-fashioned Popperian sense of scientific (un)certainty
. So, there's two responses to this. One is that our own instincts don't matter, that we only report the sources, followed by an alphabet soup of Wikilawyering. This is probably the correct response, however to answer your actual question with a real response, public health is complicated, orders of magnitude more complicated than just prscticing medicine, which is also incredibly complicated. It is easy for intuition to lead you astray, especially in the absence of important underlying facts (this is why critical thinking alone is insufficient). I can see how some people look at this and wonder why the scientific community has been so insistent that a zoonotic event is the most likely origin, but this is because we have been predicting that this would happen, based on prior events and multiple lines of evidence, for decades. A lab leak, by contrast, really is an extraordinary claim as compared to a bat coronavirus jumping to humans in the wild, via an intermediate mammal, resulting in a deadly outbreak, for the third time in the past 20 years. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)- Not instinct :) I've been reading the papers, and my point was to suggest that Karl Popper would have been saddened by the Conclusions sections I've been reading. I agree that I don't know the complexity of public health, or of medicine -- all I've done is what I, as a bioinformatician, am qualified to do: read the papers, read their Results sections, read their Conclusions sections. I repeat: galling. Of course I know all about overselling one's findings in the conclusion section, but I'm genuinely shocked and disheartened -- I really expected better with a pandemic ongoing. Obviously, this is all my interpretation and Original Research has no role in Wikipedia -- this is just a response from me to you Hyperion35, since you were kind enough to engage and provide, as you say, a "real response."
- As for "extraordinary claim": I take it that you have (quite understandably) not read the latest on this -- I too had not, until the WaPo (whose science writers I respect) turned my eye onto it. But it seems I'm not making headway here by citing others (Tedros, Science, WaPo, NYT) who are concerned about this possibility. I suppose that the interpretation of their statements is dependent upon whether one considers the lab-leak hypothesis extraordinary or ordinary. So let me try to make a brief exposition here on why the idea isn't outlandish, or baseless hand-waving, but based on their published research proposals.
- Take a look for yourself at the grant proposals in question:2018: "Predictive models of host range (i.e. emergence potential) will be tested experimentally using reverse genetics, pseudovirus and receptor binding assays, and virus infection experiments across a range of cell cultures from different species and humanized mice." The key here is that they had predictive models of coronaviruses leaping to humans ("emergence potential"), and, as their next step, they wanted to test their hypothesis with experiment -- any scientist can relate to that. So they say they intended to use reverse genetics to experimentally test these predictions in humanized mice (mice with human respiratory cells). YIKES. Seriously -- Hyperion35, Bakkster Man, RandomCanadian -- if you're willing to give these quotes some minutes of thought, do please let me know if there's some reading of them other than "we would like to test our predictions about coronaviruses leaping to humans by actually creating such viruses," because I find this quite shocking. And the 2019 grant proposal: "We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that % divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential." (Infectious clone technology "enables manipulation of RNA viruses at the molecular level," i.e. editing their sequence.) Again: testing the hypothesis of spillover potential (to humans) via editing the sequence of the virus's S protein and then testing those viruses in vitro and in vivo. Again, with the glorious benefit of hindsight: holy cow, are you sure you want to do that??? I, like Tedros, would really like a peek at their lab notebooks to see how these experiments went.
- If these experiments were conducted, what biosafety level were they done at? Here's the PI, Shi Zhengli, to Science: "The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories". She goes on to explain that their BSL-4 lab was not yet in use for their research. I know Wikipedia is not a place for emotion, but my god -- BSL-2?!?! Surely it's not a fringe opinion to say "I'd like to know, please, whether those coronavirus-spillover experiments were done in BSL-2 or BSL-3." There is not, as far as I can find, an answer to that question available. That's the sort of "further investigation" that has been called for everywhere from Science to WaPo/NYT to www.who.int.
- I apologize if my tone is sounding increasingly shrill. It's because I feel I'm going about this the right way and not being heard. Of course I don't want to be here on the Talk page, arguing about the wording of grant proposals -- my opinion is irrelevant anyway! That's why I led with Tedros and Science and the rest, but clearly I'm interpreting their statements as much more relevant/serious/noteworthy than you are. I've come to a point where either:
- This article is misrepresenting the state of knowledge/opinion, or
- I'm one of the crazies.
- I don't want this virus to have come out of a lab. I'd rather believe that I'm crazy than believe that. But so far, I'm just not seeing the evidence :D
- What does "The profile ... has risen" even mean? Sure, political agitprop (particularly in the USA) has increased and some scientists are making a fuss (as with minority positions in most science controversies) but in the best RS that has been no shift. Saying "both hypotheses remain viable" without any mention of likelihood as put forth by our best sources, would be economical with the truth of what those sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- The profile of those expressing "both hypotheses remain viable" has risen since a couple of months ago. The current wording does not reflect that change. I understand the total shitstorm that could result from irresponsible discussion of the possibility. However, that possibility has been published in Science and other outlets. Wikipedia should try to avoid being misleading, which I find the current wording to be. SSSheridan (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is the hypothesis of lab origin still an "extraordinary claim"? I come back to that word because it's relevant to the question of due/undue weight, and I just don't know how else I can make the point that this is no longer a fringe opinion. To recap:
- It is published fact that a lab in Wuhan pursued a project to engineer the S proteins of bat coronaviruses so they would infect humanized mice. (I simply cannot find any other way to read the proposals; again, please do tell me if you have one.)
- Did the project go ahead? The project was funded ca. $500k in 2018 and again in 2019, so, yes.
- What we don't know are the details: how far they got in the project, whether the specific methods they used would indeed produce viruses resembling SARS-CoV-2, etc. These are the questions driving the "calls for further investigation."
- Which biosafety level were these experiments conducted under? According to the PI, either BSL-2 or BSL-3, but not BSL-4. (To quote Wikipedia: "Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) is appropriate for work with agents that could easily be aerosol-transmitted within the laboratory and cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which there are no available vaccines or treatments.") Well, was it BSL-2 or BSL-3? We don't know.
- The above is the context which informed the following statements:
- The Letter published by Science: "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data."
- Derek Lowe, sciencemag.org: "I’m going to regret writing about this, but it’s not a topic to be ignored. Where did the current coronavirus come from?" "So it’s all an open question, unfortunately. And I think it’s important for people to realize that it’s an open question, and that we need a lot more hard evidence before anything can be said for certain. People up and down the spectrum of opinion need to realize that this could still go in several different directions."
- The Washington Post Editorial Board: "The laboratory leak theory also deserves more careful scrutiny. This is not to stigmatize Asians or to bash China, nor to embrace the Trump administration’s use of the laboratory leak theory to divert attention from its failures. The reason to investigate is the persistence of unanswered questions about research being carried out at the Wuhan institute.... The research involved testing novel chimeric viruses with different spike proteins, like that on the pandemic coronavirus strain, using “humanized” mice, with cells modified to resemble human respiratory cells." "If the laboratory leak theory is wrong, China could easily clarify the situation by being more open and transparent. Instead, it acts as if there is something to hide."
- Tedros again: "The team also considered the possibility that the virus entered the human population as a result of a laboratory incident. However, I do not believe that this assessment was extensive enough. Further data and studies will be needed to reach more robust conclusions. Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist experts, which I am ready to deploy."
- Is the hypothesis of lab origin still an "extraordinary claim"? I come back to that word because it's relevant to the question of due/undue weight, and I just don't know how else I can make the point that this is no longer a fringe opinion. To recap:
- I'm not seeking to convince anyone about where the virus came from. I'm only seeking to convince you, fellow editors, that:
- It is not a fringe opinion to say that "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data" [28], and
- The current wording in this article is a clear dismissal of that opinion; it does not give it due weight. (The current wording:)
- I'm not seeking to convince anyone about where the virus came from. I'm only seeking to convince you, fellow editors, that:
Extended content
|
---|
"A few individuals, including a small number of virologists, have claimed, with only circumstantial evidence, that the virus may have leaked from the Institute, and called for further investigations into the matter.[93][94] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[95][96] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO-China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[97][75]"
|
- My proposal for the article remains: to represent that Tedros and the authors of the Science letter (which the Science editors chose to publish) -- not "a few individuals, with only circumstantial evidence" -- are taking the laboratory spillover hypothesis seriously, and that they have called -- seriously, not formulaically -- for further, unobstructed investigation. SSSheridan (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- The grant proposal is a WP:PRIMARY source. Any interpretation of it (your questions, etc...) would be improper editorial synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. Yes, scientists conduct gain of function research. There's no evidence that SARS-Cov-2 is the result of such research, and MEDRS sources overwhelmingly reject the theory of an engineered virus. The comments by Tedros et al. are already covered to more detail at Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#World_Health_Organization. Going to such details here would be off-topic, since this isn't about the investigations and controversies related thereto. The current wording correctly states that A) there are conspiracies related to the origin of COVID-19 B) there is an unsubstantiated hypothesis that COVID may have leaked from a lab [sources given at WP:NOLABLEAK say that there is no evidence for it, ergo, we say that too] C) some have called for further investigations and D) the existing research, including the WHO report, does not support this hypothesis. You might have a point that B) and C) could be more clearly separated (as two distinct, but somewhat related ideas), but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood my reason for bringing in the primary sources. I began with the secondary sources, but we differed in how we read the same words. Perhaps I locked in too much on the "extraordinary claim" phrasing, but the purpose of quoting the primary sources was to contextualize the secondary sources, as being not merely that requisite minority of scientists who pop up to disagree with any consensus. I grant that that wasn't your criticism in the first place, RandomCanadian, so perhaps I didn't need to burden you with the name check.
- To your point. I understand that a Letter is not an Article which is not a Review, and that Wikipedia has a far higher standard than that for definitive biomedical statements. But, WP:MEDRS says: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." I maintain my position that the current sentence does not fulfill this guideline. SSSheridan (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SSSheridan: I understand the frustration. It's a difficult (and, more importantly, politically frought) topic, and covering it in asynchronous online text conversation doesn't make it any easier. I definitely don't think you're crazy or a conspiracy theorist. I think there are two areas of this discussion that are helpful to separate.
- 1. How likely is the lab leak hypothesis?' I don't think it's right to dismiss concerns or impressions on the likelihood of the lab hypothesis, certainly not offhand. While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to, depending on how they weight the quality of the different sources of information. This is a big reason I've been trying to help get suitable content about the scientific theory onto the appropriate COVID-19 pages. At the start of this year, the consensus was that any discussion of it was purely as a conspiracy theory on the COVID-19 misinformation article. Between the WHO report and other scientists feeling comfortable to speak about it, that has resulted in the change. So that should give you some confidence that things are not set in stone, they just need to go about changing in the right way. Which brings me to...
- 2. What's the consensus on how we maintain the article? This is a pretty common stumbling block. The issue being, even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article. One of the most relevant is WP:V:
Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
I suspect this may be the disconnect we're having in the above discussion. The more directly related policy is WP:FRINGE, regarding how we deal with non-mainstream topics. Particularly WP:FRINGELEVEL:Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball: While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (e.g., plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today, documenting the past when appropriate (identifying it as such), and avoiding speculation about the future.
At the moment the lab leak theory, as best we can source (WP:V), is the minority view. So for now, we take the view that the information we present must be framed relative to the mainstream view, and kept to a level that doesn't imply WP:UNDUE weight by being more wordy than the explanation of the mainstream. And, if and when we can verify that it's no longer the minority view, we will change how we write about it (just as we began to as the WHO report was published).
- I hope that helps explain things, and I hope it encourages you to keep participating in improvement. I think it's quite likely that the current wording with "A few individuals" needs refinement to be both less dismissive and more accurately describe the breadth of opinions regarding 'more investigation needed'. I think we just need to all make sure we're talking the same language of writing for the encyclopedia and meeting policy, so there's one less stumbling block in the way. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man:Cheers for the understanding reply. I basically agree with your later paragraphs, though I fear from your earlier paragraphs that I still came across as pushing the lab leak hypothesis.
While I tend to weight the evidence differently, I think it's a pretty rational conclusion for someone to come to
: I (and my inner Popper) am a bit embarrassed that I gave the impression of having "concluded" anything. I have no idea! And I'm not just saying "I have no idea" to try to sound moderate. My only opinion here is that the lab leak hypothesis is not whacky, is a significant minority opinion backed by non-fringe sources, and that the current wording still frames it as though it is a conspiracy theory of ill repute. Even if you convince me the lab leak is the most reasonable and likely explanation, that's insufficient to put it in the article.
But I wasn't trying to convince anyone. I realize that the name check, asking about the interpretation of primary sources, was misleading. I wrote the name check in a peak of self-doubt: the simplest explanation for the disparity between what I was reading and how it was being discussed here was, simply, that I was badly misunderstanding things. The name check was a genuine invitation to set me right.
- But, above and below the primary sources, I hope I made clear that they were included to bring a fellow editor up to date on why lab leak is not an "extraordinary claim." I concede that the asynchronous nature of the conversation caught me here, and I may have hammered that point harder than needed.
- The tl;dr of the primary-source invocation is to add context, to justify the Tedros quote as an actual expression of dissatisfaction, not a formulaic/routine call for "further investigation is needed," and to likewise counter the dismissal of the other secondary sources as the obligatory fringe of disagreeing scientists.
- The sources do not, of course, support representing the lab leak hypothesis as a mainstream explanation. My argument -- newly armed with the WP:MEDSCI policy -- is that that it is a "significant minority opinion" as discussed in WP:MEDSCI, which says "such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." In line with your point about first establishing a common language: should we first settle whether WP:MEDSCI is the relevant policy for this topic? Perhaps we should agree on that, then I can relaunch the discussion with a more cleanly delineated proposal. (This section originated as just an offer of candidate citations.)SSSheridan (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- The grant proposal is a WP:PRIMARY source. Any interpretation of it (your questions, etc...) would be improper editorial synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia - see WP:NOR. Yes, scientists conduct gain of function research. There's no evidence that SARS-Cov-2 is the result of such research, and MEDRS sources overwhelmingly reject the theory of an engineered virus. The comments by Tedros et al. are already covered to more detail at Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#World_Health_Organization. Going to such details here would be off-topic, since this isn't about the investigations and controversies related thereto. The current wording correctly states that A) there are conspiracies related to the origin of COVID-19 B) there is an unsubstantiated hypothesis that COVID may have leaked from a lab [sources given at WP:NOLABLEAK say that there is no evidence for it, ergo, we say that too] C) some have called for further investigations and D) the existing research, including the WHO report, does not support this hypothesis. You might have a point that B) and C) could be more clearly separated (as two distinct, but somewhat related ideas), but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- My proposal for the article remains: to represent that Tedros and the authors of the Science letter (which the Science editors chose to publish) -- not "a few individuals, with only circumstantial evidence" -- are taking the laboratory spillover hypothesis seriously, and that they have called -- seriously, not formulaically -- for further, unobstructed investigation. SSSheridan (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- In case you're wondering what's driving me so hard, if not conviction, it's this: if the lab leak hypothesis is true --if the pandemic of the century was constructed by scientists -- then (among much else), there will be a severe crisis of public trust in science, which would (probably) be a Very Bad Thing. Think of the ammunition for the next century's worth of conspiracy theorists. SSSheridan (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: this comment was published prematurely; see below.
- WP:RGW is not something to be tried; stick to the most reputable sources and Wikipedia(ns) will have clean hands, as we are meant only to be a reflection of published accepted knowledge. By the logic some editors are showing here they'd have been arguing during the MMR/Autism scare that since a lot of (reputable) newspapers were raising the alarm, maybe there was something in it. (And ironically, that is part of the reason why MEDRS evolved as it did.) Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Apologies, the above was published by the mobile interface prematurely. That wasn't the point I was trying to make.
- My purpose was this: despite repeatedly saying I don't favor the lab leak hypothesis, everyone's still assuming that's what I'm here for. And that probably makes sense as a heuristic, because most people who kick up a huge fuss are pushing a perspective.
- I raised that hypothetical about the crisis of trust just to explain myself, explain why I've come storming into this Talk page with such wordiness despite claiming not to have a favored hypothesis. As I suggested above: depending on what turns out to be true, it would be either "nice" or "really important" for Wikipedia to get this one right -- by which I mean, to be encyclopedic, fair, to accurately reflect the state of knowledge. To follow WP:MEDRS.
- WP:MEDRS/WP:MEDSCI has an explicit place for minority opinions. You say "stick to the most reputable sources," but a minority view will by definition be represented in the literature with lower prominence. So Wikipedia reflects that: it should not report minority opinions except, if appropriate, a short mention of the minority opinion and the debate.
- I'm saying that in this article, the short mention of the minority opinion is NPOV and misrepresents the state of the literature. As an illustration: if you had only read this article's take on the debate, then you would be surprised to learn that the WHO Director-General had responded to the WHO report by saying it had insufficient evidence for a robust conclusion.
- Again. My claim is that I'm not here because I believe the lab leak hypothesis, but because I believe this article treats it inaccurately. WP:MEDRS is the law of the land, I like it, and I want to bring this article into compliance. So let's just hammer out a consensus on how to do that? SSSheridan (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- My idea is that I'll start a new section/thread, and say "here's the current wording; I think that the representation of the minority opinion should be improved according to WP:MEDSCI; do you agree?", and if there is agreement, we can discuss further. Is that the right way to go about it? SSSheridan (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Anything based on the highest-quality sources is fine. But we mustn't WP:GEVAL to fringe ideas (cornanvirus lab leak), or extreme fringe conspiracy theories (bioengineered! weapon! etc!) Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SSSheridan: I think we're in pretty strong agreement, which is why I wanted to step back to help avoid any misunderstandings. I think the only remaining clarification from my side is regarding WP:FRINGE. The common misconception with FRINGE seems to be that it implies conspiracy or pseudoscience. However, the guideline is clear that it also includes "alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community", which is where I currently categorize the lab leak hypothesis. This is basically my one critique of the FRINGE policy, that there's no way to more clearly reference alternative theories, without an unintended implication that it's less valid than it is. With luck the WP:FRINGE/ALT redirect I just made will be accepted, so we can point to it more clearly without the pseudoscientific presumption.
- But to be clear I agree, the section could use improved wording, and a fresh section would help. The guiding principles should be WP:MEDSCI, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGELEVEL, which say roughly the same thing. The trick is just 1. agreeing on the appropriate weight/acceptance level among the scientific community 2. stating this clearly without over- or under-valuing. Both unfortunately easier said than done, but worth our effort to improve. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bakkster Man: I see - I was using "fringe" in the conventional sense, unaware that it's more broadly defined on Wikipedia. I definitely agree that a "rebranding" could be beneficial. As for this article. Given your greater experience (and greater esteem round these parts), perhaps you should start a new discussion. I'd imagine that everyone round here is tired of endless discussions (apologies for my hefty contribution to that); perhaps a clearly delineated framing of the question(s) can better contain the discussion. SSSheridan (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- WP:RGW is not something to be tried; stick to the most reputable sources and Wikipedia(ns) will have clean hands, as we are meant only to be a reflection of published accepted knowledge. By the logic some editors are showing here they'd have been arguing during the MMR/Autism scare that since a lot of (reputable) newspapers were raising the alarm, maybe there was something in it. (And ironically, that is part of the reason why MEDRS evolved as it did.) Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- In case you're wondering what's driving me so hard, if not conviction, it's this: if the lab leak hypothesis is true --if the pandemic of the century was constructed by scientists -- then (among much else), there will be a severe crisis of public trust in science, which would (probably) be a Very Bad Thing. Think of the ammunition for the next century's worth of conspiracy theorists. SSSheridan (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Edit: this comment was published prematurely; see below.
Informal hatting: as I began the above discussion without enough knowledge of the relevant policies, the discussion grew too long and complicated to be of much use. Please join the better-structured discussion over at WikiProject COVID-19. SSSheridan (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2021
Please replace
The [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus has been estimated to be around 5.7.<ref name="high contagiousness" /> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 5.7 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.
with
A meta-analisis from november 2020 estimated the [[basic reproduction number]] (<math>R_0</math>) of the virus to be between 2.39 and 3.44.<ref name="reproNumber"/> This means each infection from the virus is expected to result in 2.39 to 3.44 new infections when no members of the community are [[immunity (medical)|immune]] and no [[infection control|preventive measures]] are taken.
and
<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>
with
<ref name="reproNumber">{{cite journal | vauthors = Billah MA, Miah MM, Khan MN | title = Reproductive number of coronavirus: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on global level evidence | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 15 | issue = 11 | pages = e0242128 | date = 2020-11-11 | pmid = 33175914 | pmc = 7657547 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0242128 | bibcode = 2020PLoSO..1542128B }}</ref>
per Talk:Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Conflicting_R0_estimates. While it seems reasonable to point out how these estimates may change, the Transmission_of_COVID-19 article covers their history using the same refs and, while it's true that this number has been estimated to 5.7, using two different numbers in different parts of this article seems just confusing. The ref name is debatable and I couldn't check if the syntax really works. Personuser (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Lab Leak Again
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Lab Leak Again --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021
Change "Use Commonwealth English" to "EngvarB" per tfd outcome Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#To_convert 81.2.252.231 (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not done for now: Have you considered putting in a request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks? This would alleviate the need for each of these templates to be changed manually. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- The template doesn't seem to be really that common [29] and the ideal substitute in a particular article may vary. I also wanted to note that the talk page template was changed to Hong Kong English. I can't really tell how appropriate was this choise, but the two matters should probably be considered together. Personuser (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Personuser: I don't know what specific differences there are between various Commonwealth varieties and British English, but changing it to "British English" on all pages likely wouldn't be controversial. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert either. The only thing I was able to quickly notice is the use of "center" instead of "centre", but probably only related to official names, which shouldn't be changed. This pretty much boils down to choosing a variant and letting grammar savy editors fix discrepancies, so if other editors don't have some strong opinion about it, British English should be ok. Personuser (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- The template doesn't seem to be really that common [29] and the ideal substitute in a particular article may vary. I also wanted to note that the talk page template was changed to Hong Kong English. I can't really tell how appropriate was this choise, but the two matters should probably be considered together. Personuser (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Shi Zhengli, biosafety at the WIV, and conspiracy
At Shi Zhengli, IPs and editors are inserting [30][31] the comment that Zhi Zhengli "admitted" that coronavirus research at the WIV had been conducted in BSL-2 labs during an interview with Science Magazine. The implication is that poor safety by Shi or the WIV may have caused the outbreak. This inserted text is taken from a new article [32] written in the The Washington Post that uses almost identical language:
In the interview, she admitted that some coronavirus research was conducted at biosafety level 2, not the more restrictive BSL-4.
However, if you go to the original Science Magazine interview [33] including the extended interview from which the Washington Post quotes [34], you can see that what Shi (and Science Magazine) say is quite different: far from "admitting" that the WIV uses BSL-2 labs, Shi explains why her group now uses BSL-4 labs for their work:
Q: Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs--and indeed, you WIV didn't even have an operational BSL-4 until recently--why would you do any coronavirus experiments under BSL-4 conditions?
A: The coronavirus research in our laboratory is conducted in BSL-2 or BSL-3 laboratories.
After the BSL-4 laboratory in our institute has been put into operation, in accordance with the management regulations of BSL-4 laboratory, we have trained the scientific researchers in the BSL-4 laboratory using the low-pathogenic coronaviruses as model viruses, which aims to prepare for conducting the experimental activities of highly pathogenic microorganisms.
After the COVID-19 outbreak, our country has stipulated that the cultivation and the animal infection experiments of SARS-CoV-2 should be carried out in BSL-3 laboratory or above. Since the BSL-3 laboratories in our institute do not have the hardware conditions to conduct experiments on non-human primates, and in order to carry out the mentioned research, our institute had applied to the governmental authorities and obtained the qualification to conduct experiments on SARS-CoV-2 for Wuhan P4 laboratory, in which the rhesus monkey animal model, etc. have been carried out.
I've tried to make this clear in this edit [35], but I want to make sure I'm getting this right. It seems that Shi's group used to use BSL-2 and BSL-3 like everyone else, but since the pandemic, as of July 31 at least, her group was now using BSL-4 for some coronavirus research because of new regulations drafted by the Chinese government, after the start of the pandemic. Am I reading this correctly? -Darouet (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- You're correct that "admitted" is loaded language, and that she said "BSL-2 and BSL-3", so it's anyone's guess which research was done in which. It is the correct reading that they were only doing training in the BSL-4 lab before the pandemic. I'm inclined to agree with your reading that they've been doing monkey experiments in BSL-4 subsequently, but I'm not sure why it says "P4" there. SSSheridan (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and this is a side-point, but my opinion is that it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories". There are "secret bioweapon research" theories, and then there are "well intentioned research had an oopsie," which I've been recently convinced is actually quite plausible. I don't support that hypothesis, per se -- I agree with Tedros and the Science letter that both origins remain open possibilities, and I agree with the other editors that the current state of the literature strongly favors zoonosis. Here's why I bring it up: 1) I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, and 2) I think that labeling it as such unnecessarily antagonizes people with legitimate concerns. This pandemic has hurt a lot of people, so it's more than your average conspiracy junkie who's going to feel troubled about this. SSSheridan (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories"
} ← and this is happening where? Alexbrn (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)- @Alexbrn: Respectfully: Is this a sincere question or are you being facetious? Until very recently, suggesting on Wikipedia that the lab leak hypothesis should be characterized as anything but a baseless conspiracy theory was met with repudiation bordering on ridicule. This dismissiveness was not reserved only for those who alleged more extreme views (like claiming SARS-CoV-2 is conclusively a bioweapon); rather, even those who said that a lab leak is one plausible explanation—and that it should be portrayed as such on Wikipedia—were derided or ignored. The discussion of COVID-19 origins on Wikipedia has been tainted by partisan politics and tribal sentimentalities since day one.2600:1700:FE20:2390:44C8:7275:8F8D:CEAB (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- No evidence presented, of course. It's true the discussions have been "tainted by partisan politics and tribal sentimentalities since day one", but I think Wikipedia has done a good job of sticking to the sources and holding the line, thanks to the work of good editors. A hearty pat on the back is merited. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: No evidence presented for what exactly? Are you suggesting you need to see evidence in order to be convinced that the lab leak hypothesis was widely dismissed on Wikipedia? If that is truly what you meant, then please let me know, and I'll use the Wayback Machine to pull up old Talk pages on the COVID-19 misinformation wiki. By the way: I'm not contending that you, or any other editor, has ever possessed any bad intentions—not at all. With that said, a little bit of reflection regarding "how could we perhaps have done slightly better?" would be a welcomed sight (as opposed to hearty self-patting on the collective back). 2600:1700:FE20:2390:44C8:7275:8F8D:CEAB (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you're in agreement that this perspective is no longer the case on Wikipedia, then for the most part we can't go back and change the past. We can only fix it now if someone or somewhere is currently "labeling all lab-leak scenarios as conspiracy theories" (and we're trying to do better in making these distinctions where they're tricky now). And that was the question, where is it happening now?
- While there's probably room for refinement with retrospection, I'd suggest most of the editorial views came from two areas: 1) reflections of the scientific community which had given a full-throated dismissal of lab-related theorizing 2) the prevalence of actual unscientific conspiracy theories mis-citing research. Those two seemed to feed off each other (still do to an extent), leading to the reaction by mainstream science of not even taking the possibility seriously, lest it fuel conspiracies. Assuming you agree that the scientific community (or at least, scholarly peer-reviewed sources on the topic) had broadly categorized the topic as such, then WP:FRINGELEVEL mostly tied our hands that we should treat it similarly. We had to wait until we could verify prevailing opinion was no longer that this was conspiratorial thought, since we lack a WP:CRYSTALBALL.
- I suspect you'll find that this kind of comment makes people bristle (especially from an anonymous IP editor, consider creating an account) because the people you're talking to have put in the hard work of following that changing consensus. Incredibly difficult and frustrating, not because of those with reasonable perspectives on furin cleavage sites and stuff, but because the page was frequently full of whackos and those taking pot shots. So coming in now and criticizing the past, instead of looking to improve things going forward, is not going to be viewed in a friendly light. Don't WP:BLUDGEON, what's done is done. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: No evidence presented for what exactly? Are you suggesting you need to see evidence in order to be convinced that the lab leak hypothesis was widely dismissed on Wikipedia? If that is truly what you meant, then please let me know, and I'll use the Wayback Machine to pull up old Talk pages on the COVID-19 misinformation wiki. By the way: I'm not contending that you, or any other editor, has ever possessed any bad intentions—not at all. With that said, a little bit of reflection regarding "how could we perhaps have done slightly better?" would be a welcomed sight (as opposed to hearty self-patting on the collective back). 2600:1700:FE20:2390:44C8:7275:8F8D:CEAB (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- No evidence presented, of course. It's true the discussions have been "tainted by partisan politics and tribal sentimentalities since day one", but I think Wikipedia has done a good job of sticking to the sources and holding the line, thanks to the work of good editors. A hearty pat on the back is merited. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: Title of the section. "Conspiracy" doesn't seem to relate to anything.SSSheridan (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: Respectfully: Is this a sincere question or are you being facetious? Until very recently, suggesting on Wikipedia that the lab leak hypothesis should be characterized as anything but a baseless conspiracy theory was met with repudiation bordering on ridicule. This dismissiveness was not reserved only for those who alleged more extreme views (like claiming SARS-CoV-2 is conclusively a bioweapon); rather, even those who said that a lab leak is one plausible explanation—and that it should be portrayed as such on Wikipedia—were derided or ignored. The discussion of COVID-19 origins on Wikipedia has been tainted by partisan politics and tribal sentimentalities since day one.2600:1700:FE20:2390:44C8:7275:8F8D:CEAB (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and this is a side-point, but my opinion is that it's unfair to label all lab-leak scenarios as "conspiracy theories". There are "secret bioweapon research" theories, and then there are "well intentioned research had an oopsie," which I've been recently convinced is actually quite plausible. I don't support that hypothesis, per se -- I agree with Tedros and the Science letter that both origins remain open possibilities, and I agree with the other editors that the current state of the literature strongly favors zoonosis. Here's why I bring it up: 1) I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, and 2) I think that labeling it as such unnecessarily antagonizes people with legitimate concerns. This pandemic has hurt a lot of people, so it's more than your average conspiracy junkie who's going to feel troubled about this. SSSheridan (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- So, this is an excellent example for why so many of us keep insisting that MEDPOP sources are a problem. The Washington Post article clearly screwed this up. The Science interview lacks sufficient specificity such that we have to guess as to what is being said. Do you see how this creates problems? In my reading, it sounds as though they used BSL 2 and 3 when dealing with either viruses or proteins that were not known to be capable of infecting humans. It is unclear from the interview whether they began using BSL 4 protocols before or after the pandemic began. When they first completed the BSL 4 upgrade, they used model viruses to practice BSL 4 protocols, viruses that would not normally require BSL 4.
Also, it sounds from the article interview as though SARS-COV-2 still only requires BSL 3 even after the pandemic, which would imply that the lab has always had sufficient (BSL 3) protocols for handling this virus.
But you see the problems here, right? Even this much requires us to interpret and synthesize from this interview, and that's not appropriate. This is exactly why some of us have repeatedly insisted on the MEDRS standard so that we can avoid these situations where we either quote from a newspaper source that clearly misrepresented an interview, or we try to interpret an ambiguous response to an interview question ourselves. Hyperion35 (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on the loaded language, along with the conclusions being a stretch. I suspect there may be a need for further clarification before we can make conclusions. Most importantly: which research was performed at BSL-2? Per the CDC regarding SARS-CoV-2 "Routine diagnostic testing procedures, such as the following activities, can be handled in a BSL-2 laboratory using Standard Precautions."[36] Even some procedures with SARS virus can be performed in BSL-2 in the US.[37] Without more information on which activities were performed on which viruses at which level, we can't assume anything untoward or reckless happened, and until then it's not really notable (because it gives undue weight to that 'something was done wrong' presumption). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- How does a response to an interview question that begins "Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs" become an admission? Yikes. I think that goes beyond "loaded" language into outright distortion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- An excellent example of why we have WP:MEDPOP. For the record, I think the rewrite by @Darouet: was well done to place it in context. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, Darouet's edit looks pretty good to me. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- An excellent example of why we have WP:MEDPOP. For the record, I think the rewrite by @Darouet: was well done to place it in context. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- How does a response to an interview question that begins "Given that coronavirus research in most places is done in BSL-2 or BSL-3 labs" become an admission? Yikes. I think that goes beyond "loaded" language into outright distortion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on the loaded language, along with the conclusions being a stretch. I suspect there may be a need for further clarification before we can make conclusions. Most importantly: which research was performed at BSL-2? Per the CDC regarding SARS-CoV-2 "Routine diagnostic testing procedures, such as the following activities, can be handled in a BSL-2 laboratory using Standard Precautions."[36] Even some procedures with SARS virus can be performed in BSL-2 in the US.[37] Without more information on which activities were performed on which viruses at which level, we can't assume anything untoward or reckless happened, and until then it's not really notable (because it gives undue weight to that 'something was done wrong' presumption). Bakkster Man (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at WikiProject COVID-19
Please join this broad discussion on how we discuss and explain COVID origins. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Guangdong Phylogenetic Analysis
The following addition by @Rotideypoc41352: to the Reservoir and Origin section insinuates a conclusion that is neither supported in nor by the referenced paper:
A phylogenetic network analysis of 160 early coronavirus genomes sampled from December 2019 to February 2020 showed that the virus type most closely related to the bat coronavirus was most abundant in Guangdong, China, and designated type "A". The predominant type among samples from Wuhan, "B", is more distantly related to the bat coronavirus than the ancestral type "A".[1]
This implies that Guangdong Province may be considered as an alternative location (to Wuhan) for the initial outbreak, since the "A" cluster is marginally closer to the outgroup, RaTG13. Forster et al., on the other hand, suggest that type "B" exhibits a potential founder effect due to the relative propensity of types "A" and "C" to spread abroad. Note that 17 of the 43 cases of type "A" occur outside of East Asia altogether as opposed to six cases in Guangdong and five cases in Wuhan. All six cases in Guangdong occurred in Shenzhen, as well, which Wikipedia describes as "busiest in China when it comes to border crossings;" one viral lineage traced in the paper even follows a Canadian infected with the type "B" variant who travels to Ottawa from Wuhan via Guangdong Province. Furthermore, only four Guangdong cases make up the ancestral T-allele node that the phylogenetic analysis predicts is equally close to RaTG13 as the ancestral C-allele node made up of three Americans and a Chinese national who was not in Guangdong. Four cases and a median network algorithm do not a substitute for Wuhan make, and Forster et al. never made this claim. This selection should either be rewritten to better represent the source cited or stricken from the article. At the very least, the claims should be qualified and disassociated from Guangdong. Vachaknu (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Honestly, the edit request I fulfilled more than a year ago should just be updated with info from more recent review articles. I kept trying to fix the Reservoir section in general because Asifwhale completely changed the meaning of the sentences without updating the sources, but I burned out. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Burnout is understandable given the controversy surrounding SARS-CoV-2 articles here on Wikipedia, and I appreciate your effort to improve this section. I also agree that an update is overdue since the articles cited are, by and large, more than a year old - a cursory search easily turned up three more recent academic sources relevant to the phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 origins.[2][3][4] If there is an appetite to update the section as a whole, I am willing to lend a hand. If not, I intend to submit an edit request within the week regarding the excerpt above since it is currently misleading. Vachaknu (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Vachaknu: use Sallard et al 2012, not the others you found per WP:MEDRS. Another reason the article needs updating: any biomedical information citing a primary source (as defined in WP:MEDDEF) should be updated to summarize a more recent literature review or systematic review from reputable, independent journals (or other medical reliable source). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Burnout is understandable given the controversy surrounding SARS-CoV-2 articles here on Wikipedia, and I appreciate your effort to improve this section. I also agree that an update is overdue since the articles cited are, by and large, more than a year old - a cursory search easily turned up three more recent academic sources relevant to the phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 origins.[2][3][4] If there is an appetite to update the section as a whole, I am willing to lend a hand. If not, I intend to submit an edit request within the week regarding the excerpt above since it is currently misleading. Vachaknu (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Forster P, Forster L, Renfrew C, Forster M (8 April 2020). "Phylogenetic network analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes" (PDF). PNAS. 117 (17): 9241–9243. doi:10.1073/pnas.2004999117. PMC 7196762. PMID 32269081. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 April 2020. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
- ^ https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/5/1777/6030946
- ^ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-020-01151-1#article-info
- ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-79484-8
Paragraph on lab accident
The wording of the following paragraph is in dispute:
- Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[1] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated,[2] and, early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was bio-engineered by China at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,[3] amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right.[4] Others, including politicians and some scientists made unsubstantiated[5] claims that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Institute. This has led to calls in the media for further investigations into the matter.[5][6][7][8] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[9][10] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO–China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[11][12]
I think it is fine to live edit the paragraph; however, it might also be beneficial to have a simultaneous conversation here on the talk page. At the moment the paragraph has problems with non-neutral wording, editorializing, and straying from discussing science which is the main theme of this article. Maybe a good way to improve the paragraph is for everyone to provide their ideal version of the paragraph.
I would suggest the following version of the paragraph:
- Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[1] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[13] Some scientists have stated that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.[14] This has led to calls in the media for further investigations into the matter.[5][15][16] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility very remote,[17][10] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO–China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[11][12]
The benefit of this version is that it cuts out most of the politics, the wordiness, and keeps the statement about the lab accident to one sentence and the paragraph very brief. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is this makes it seem likes it's a WP:GEVAL on-the-one-hand-on-the-other kind of situation where the sourced reality is that in an uncertain situation sensible people embrace that uncertainty (while noting that we have likely scenarios, and unlikely ones) – while meanwhile a vocal mass of wingnuts and conspiracy theorists have embraced the lab leak conspiracy theory based on false evidence and/or no-evidence, while blending their beliefs with political/antivax/racist views. We need to make plain this is how the "balance" is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the feed back. This new version should address the above concerns:
- Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[1] Nonetheless, in the context of global geopolitical tensions, the origin is still hotly debated.[18] Some scientists have said that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and have asked for an investigation of both possibilities.[19][5] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[20][10] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO–China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[11][12]
The benefit of this version is that it trims out some more non-science clutter, and then allows the rebuttal sentence of the majority to directly follow. At the moment there is no false equivalence, since the first sentence in the paragraph clearly states that the available evidence indicates a natural origin. And also, the last sentence minimizes the possibility with both the view of the majority of the scientists and the report of the WHO. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- We can't use an old source to say a matter is "still hotly debated", per WP:RELTIME. And we need to be clear that it's a debate not within science, but within the domain of politics and conspiracism. We should also include the new Science-Based Medicine source for an expert overview on this question of fringe science.[38] Alexbrn (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Good point about the statement about geopolitical debate causing confusion. The best thing to do is eliminate it an all non-science commentary and keep that material for the non-science articles on the topic. Here are three new versions. The first with no qualifier as concerns the evidence and the two others making mention:
- A. Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[1] Nonetheless, some scientists have said that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and have asked for an investigation of both possibilities.[21][5] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[22][10] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO–China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[11][12]
And
- B. Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[1] Nonetheless, some scientists have said without direct evidence that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and have asked for an investigation of both possibilities.[23][5] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[24][10] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO–China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[11][12]
And:
- C. Available evidence suggests that SARS‑CoV‑2 has a natural animal origin.[1] Nonetheless, some scientists have said with only circumstantial evidence that the virus may have accidentally escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and have asked for an investigation of both possibilities.[25][5] Most virologists who have studied coronaviruses consider the possibility of a lab origin very remote,[26][10] and the March 2021 WHO report on the joint WHO–China study stated that such an explanation is "extremely unlikely".[11][12]
Not quite clear which version is the best. Look forward to hearing other people's feedback and their suggested version of the contested paragraph. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- These all lose the pertinent point that this is a torch the American far right are carrying. Per WP:GEVAL we need to make clear the "lab leak" is (or is a central pillar of) conspiracy theories, otherwise we risk giving undue prominence to a WP:FRINGE notion. Alexbrn (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. All of the suggested variants remove, without reason, any and all mentions of politics (whether related to ruled out bollocks or to the lab leak), and thus paint an inaccurate picture of a "scientific controversy" when in fact the lab leak is still considered by best sources to be extremely unlikely, without evidence to support it, and is more political noise than anything else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- While the political side is clearly due on COVID-19 misinformation, I think we need to be careful here. Most notably, to not treat the "unlikely" WP:FRINGE/ALT theory and the politics/conspiracy surrounding and using it as synonymous. Lumping the scientific theory with the conspiracy doesn't necessarily give it WP:DUE weight, it might give it WP:UNDUE dismissal. Perhaps a simple paragraph break between the scientific dismissal of the minority science, and the political (mis-)usage of it, would make this distinction clear. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. All of the suggested variants remove, without reason, any and all mentions of politics (whether related to ruled out bollocks or to the lab leak), and thus paint an inaccurate picture of a "scientific controversy" when in fact the lab leak is still considered by best sources to be extremely unlikely, without evidence to support it, and is more political noise than anything else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
Rarity of Furin Cleavage Site is inaccurately described here
The article says: SARS‑CoV‑2 is unique among known betacoronaviruses in its incorporation of a polybasic site cleaved by furin
. Is this correct? I've read that FCS is common among coronaviruses and uncommon on Sarbecoviruses. I don't know how it stands among betacoronaviruses. Can we get this claim fact-checked? Forich (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Another specific genomic feature of SARS-CoV-2 is the insertion of four amino acid residues (PRRA) at the junction of subunits S1 and S2 of the S protein26 (Fig. 3a). This insertion generates a polybasic cleavage site (RRAR), which enables effective cleavage by furin and other proteases. Such an S1–S2 cleavage site is not observed in all related viruses belonging to the subgenus Sarbecovirus, except for a similar three amino acid insertion (PAA) in RmYN02, a bat-derived coronavirus newly reported from Rhinolophus malayanus in China.
- And per Kai-Wang To et al., Emerg Microbes Infect. 2021; 10(1): 507–535., this is also an important factor in virulence:
It contains two subunits S1 and S2 with a polybasic site PRRA at the junction, which enables effective cleavage by furin and other proteases [5]. This multibasic cleavage site appears to be an important virulence factor which may enhance virus replication and multiple tissue tropism as in the case of avian influenza A(H5N1) virus [20, 21]. Mutations in this site can attenuate pathogenicity in animal models and may be an attractive option for designing live attenuated vaccines [21].
- I also remember reading something about the furin cleavage site being under selective pressure, but I can't find the paper at the moment. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Forich: And to clarify your confusion, Sarbecovirus is a subgenus of Betacoronavirus. See Betacoronavirus#Sarbecovirus (lineage B). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- In addition, (from Science-Based Medicine), refuting a conspiracy theory, but I'll quote for the scientific facts: "Basically, Wade’s argument seems to be that because a furin cleavage site of this sort hasn’t been seen in SARS-related beta coronaviruses before it must have been engineered. The problem is that such furin cleavage sites are common in a wide variety of viruses, including coronaviruses, and that scientists already had identified plausible mechanisms by which it could have ended up where it did in SARS-CoV2 last year: [...]" - this cites as a source the recent Wu and Zhao, Stem Cell Res. 2021 Jan; 50: 102115. for FCS occuring naturally in CoVs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian:, thanks for your responses and for bringing good sources. They answered partially my question. Now we know this:
- Subfamily Orthocoronavirinae or Coronaviruses: FCS is common
- Genus Betacoronavirus: We don't know how common it is, at least from the sources you provided
- @Forich: Wu and Zhao (cited above) give a diagram as a graphical abstract for Betacoronavirus which highlights multiple examples of FCS in other subgenera (but not in Sar.). I think that clarifies the matter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Subfamily Orthocoronavirinae or Coronaviruses: FCS is common
- @RandomCanadian:, thanks for your responses and for bringing good sources. They answered partially my question. Now we know this:
- In addition, (from Science-Based Medicine), refuting a conspiracy theory, but I'll quote for the scientific facts: "Basically, Wade’s argument seems to be that because a furin cleavage site of this sort hasn’t been seen in SARS-related beta coronaviruses before it must have been engineered. The problem is that such furin cleavage sites are common in a wide variety of viruses, including coronaviruses, and that scientists already had identified plausible mechanisms by which it could have ended up where it did in SARS-CoV2 last year: [...]" - this cites as a source the recent Wu and Zhao, Stem Cell Res. 2021 Jan; 50: 102115. for FCS occuring naturally in CoVs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Forich: And to clarify your confusion, Sarbecovirus is a subgenus of Betacoronavirus. See Betacoronavirus#Sarbecovirus (lineage B). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: Article has been updated to reflect the above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Nice work @RandomCanadian:. This is the current information: A distinguishing feature of SARS‑CoV‑2 is its incorporation of a polybasic site cleaved by furin, which appears to be an important element enhancing its virulence. Although such sites are a common naturally-occurring feature of other viruses, including members of the Beta-CoV genus and other genera of coronaviruses, SARS-Cov-2 is unique among members of its subgenus for such a site.
. Please compare with this phrase from the WHO report (p. 83) in order to assess whether there is room for improvement (i.e. the WHO report says that most Betacoronaviruses do not have the FCS which is more informative than saying that in members of betacoronvairuses FCS sites at the S1/S2 junction occur naturally): This furin-cleavage site is not present in most other betacoronaviruses (for instance, SARS-CoV)
. Forich (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, good catch all around. The paper cited by the WHO report is this one,[1] which states more directly:
Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 has a unique furin cleavage site insertion (PRRA) not found in any other CoVs in the Sarbecovirus group (fig. S3), although similar motifs are also found in MERS and more divergent bat CoVs. This PRRA motif makes the S1/S2 cleavage in SARS-CoV-2 much more efficient than in SARS-CoV and may expand its tropism and/or enhance its transmissibility. A recent study of bat CoVs in Yunnan, China, identified a three–amino acid insertion (PAA) at the same site. Although it is not known whether this PAA motif can function similar to the PRRA motif, the presence of a similar insertion at the same site indicates that such insertion may already be present in the wild bat CoVs. The more efficient cleavage of S1 and S2 subunits of the S glycoprotein and efficient binding to ACE2 by SARS-CoV-2 may have allowed SARS-CoV-2 to jump to humans, leading to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in China and the rest of the world.
Best not to dive too deeply into details, but I agree we want to get it right. It seems the gap is between 'commonly occurring' and 'present in most'. The former doesn't necessarily imply the latter, but we also don't want to unintentionally suggest that it is implied here. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)- Maybe some grammatical re-jigging could make this clearer? "Although such sites are a common naturally-occurring feature of other viruses, including in some members of the Beta-CoV genus and in other genera of coronaviruses, [...]"? Wu and Zhao, however, seem to be less cautious, and are also more recent that Li et al., and their abstract is rather clear that there are multiple examples. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that works well, if we continue to use the word 'common'. If the concern is with 'common' itself, then perhaps removing common and including a reference to MERS? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Three points I'd like to ask are: 1) What is the DUE taxonomical category to mention: the subfamily, the genus or the subgenus? Our readers interested in general information on the virus may have different needs than readers of the specialized papers. 2) Once we pick what levels to report, should we go with most/common/rare or with "there is multiple examples". I think "most/common/rare" is still a more accurate descriptor given that a particular subgenus can have hundreds of strains, and having "multiple" of them with a particular characteristic won't make it common. 3) If we bring an example of other well-know virus, do we pick one that has the FCS or one that lacks it? Or we bring examples of both? I like the WHO report quote because they went for the genus, they used "is not present in most" (which we can convert into "is present in few" for brevity), and used a negative example (SARS-CoV-1 lacks a FCS despite being a well-know relative). Forich (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it befits us to make that decision ourselves. We should follow what our reliable, secondary sources consider the most relevant.
- This one really depends on why we're mentioning the frequency of occurrence in the first place for it to be notable. The simple presence of the Furin cleavage site, and its effect on human infectiousness, is obviously notable on its own. But I'd suggest the inclusion of the frequency in nature relates directly to the origin debate, specifically the argument from lab-origin advocates that the FCS is an indicator of lab modification. See #1, we should mirror the reliable secondary sources on this, not the fringe ones, in order to keep the NPOV. Of note, the WHO report describes the FCS as "not present in most other betacoronaviruses", but also that "both RmYN02 and RshSTT200/182 share part of the furin-cleavage site unique to SARS-CoV-2." So we don't need to go in blind on this one, and can provide context that 'being rare' doesn't mean 'unlikely' (not necessarily mentioned in sources, but a possibility of survivorship bias. FCS/ACE-2 may be rare in nature, but the viruses with them may be the most likely to jumpt to humans).
- Personally, I think both SARS and MERS would be the appropriate comparison, absent an WP:RS guiding us elsewhere (though both the RS and fringe sources tend to make these comparisons, from what I've seen). They're the two other major human CoVs causing severe symptoms, one with each of these structures, making good sense as comparisons.
- Good focusing questions. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Three points I'd like to ask are: 1) What is the DUE taxonomical category to mention: the subfamily, the genus or the subgenus? Our readers interested in general information on the virus may have different needs than readers of the specialized papers. 2) Once we pick what levels to report, should we go with most/common/rare or with "there is multiple examples". I think "most/common/rare" is still a more accurate descriptor given that a particular subgenus can have hundreds of strains, and having "multiple" of them with a particular characteristic won't make it common. 3) If we bring an example of other well-know virus, do we pick one that has the FCS or one that lacks it? Or we bring examples of both? I like the WHO report quote because they went for the genus, they used "is not present in most" (which we can convert into "is present in few" for brevity), and used a negative example (SARS-CoV-1 lacks a FCS despite being a well-know relative). Forich (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think that works well, if we continue to use the word 'common'. If the concern is with 'common' itself, then perhaps removing common and including a reference to MERS? Bakkster Man (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe some grammatical re-jigging could make this clearer? "Although such sites are a common naturally-occurring feature of other viruses, including in some members of the Beta-CoV genus and in other genera of coronaviruses, [...]"? Wu and Zhao, however, seem to be less cautious, and are also more recent that Li et al., and their abstract is rather clear that there are multiple examples. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Li, Xiaojun; Giorgi, Elena E.; Marichannegowda, Manukumar Honnayakanahalli; Foley, Brian; Xiao, Chuan; Kong, Xiang-Peng; Chen, Yue; Gnanakaran, S.; Korber, Bette; Gao, Feng (2020-07-01). "Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 through recombination and strong purifying selection". Science Advances. 6 (27): eabb9153. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fsciadv.abb9153.
{{cite journal}}
: Check|doi=
value (help); External link in
(help)|doi=
Wade article and others. Extremely POV origin section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is now considerable evidence beyond right wing bullshit. I would encourage people to read https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ (There are other sources)
The WHO team that investigated had Peter Daszak on it, who was the person that oversaw the US grant that funded the lab. It is the international virology community that is being accused here, not just Wuhan.
The section in this article is extremely POV, saying about five times that they think it had a natural origin. It needs balance.
No natural precursor has been found. The lab was studying gain-of-function Corono viruses. And China has censored the data. This needs to be said.
Look beyond your political biases. Just because Trump is an idiot does not mean he is always wrong -- even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Tuntable (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- aaaand you've been reverted because your edits baselessly suggest that gain of function research was performed on the virus, which there is exactly zero evidence for, based on unreliable sources. It's your perspective that's extremely POV, not the articles. I think your opinion can safely be ignored. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- ...I'll be charitable to OP:
No natural precursor
*inhales* Bruh. brUH?? The bat coronaviruses? SARS-CoV-1? Literally the many coronaviruses out there we haven't even found yet? This is not the first time a virus has jumped species, nor will this be the last. It happens all the time! Friend. Friend. A virus does not need a GoF lab to be dangerous. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)- I'll be nice and also point them to the just preceding section for a thorough refutation of one of the bullshit claims made by Wade. See also this (recent) paper, which elegantly puts it: "Other strategies, more speculative than those listed above, have been used to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 came from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020). The evidence indicates that SARS-CoV-2 was not purposefully manipulated (Andersen et al., 2020). Moreover, the notion that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic resulted from a laboratory accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (Rogin, 2020) is not necessary to explain the pandemic."" Also, top virologist quoted indirectly here saying that "The suggestion that it would have taken some Chinese science experiments to get the virus from bats in Yunnan to human beings in Wuhan seemed to leave him slightly affronted, on behalf of the natural world."... And yes, it happens, all the bloody time - recent example...RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- ...I'll be charitable to OP:
- There is nothing in these statements that refutes Wade. Sure, it might have been natural, but that does not mean it might not also have been GoFed. There is no strong evidence either way at this point, as Wade points out.
- Wade asserts that the virology lab was doing gain-of-function research on Coronoviruses. Does anybody dispute this? Was he lying?
- Wade asserts that there are no known precursors in humans or animals despite a large search, and that the precursors for SARS etc. were found within months. Again, is that disputed?
- Wade asserts that the Chinese government has sealed all records, and has banned all Chinese researchers from publishing on this. Again, is he lying?
- Wade asserts that Daszak was overseeing the funding of the lab, therefor was not impartial. Yet he was on the WHO team and organized the initial Nature article. Was that also a lie?
That above would certainly lead to strong suspicion about the lab. There are technical bits a well, but that is enough for now.
Maybe Wade is full of shit. But he is widely read and quoted. He deserves to be heard even if only to have his arguments properly debunked.
There are certainly other very credible authors that have doubts https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1
The anger and censorship above only adds wait to the idea that Wade is correct. The section in the article reads like propaganda, vs Wade's sober writing. I also presume that some (not all) of the editors of this article are Chinese government employees. Tuntable (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wade is a non-scientist, publishing in a non-topic related journal, for which we have no evidence of peer-review (since the piece in question is a copy of a previous self-published Medium post). His opinion (since that is what the paper sums up to) cannot be taken seriously (he's not helped by his previous record of publishing a book about genetics widely rejected by experts in that field) since he is not a relevant expert, and since WP:ARSEHOLES applies. Yes, of course, some of what he says is true. The conclusions he makes from it are patently incorrect, and significantly at odds with what actual experts are saying (see this from a reputed skeptic source for rebuttals of his claims). Per WP:FRINGE, he doesn't deserve mention here, since this isn't an article about fringe theories, and putting him here would be the epitome of undue legitimisation (WP:FALSEBALANCE). The letter in Science is being misinterpreted (it does not argue for Wade's scenario of a deliberately engineered virus). Anyway, I've made my point. Unless you have better sources than Wade, Segretto, Deigin, or the like, this cannot go in except as a very minor, generic mention about conspiracy theories and misinformation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- We can go at the facts all day, unless you'd like to retrieve Russell's teapot. Three too many of us have laid out the research from others who have put in the blood, sweat, tears, and toil for their skills and knowledge. Plus, saying
some (not all) of the editors of this article are Chinese government employees
makes people less likely to believe you are here to build consensus and more likely to just let WP:GS/COVID19 run its course. Not anger (ran out long ago), not "censorship" (this is a private website), just sober writing. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- We can go at the facts all day, unless you'd like to retrieve Russell's teapot. Three too many of us have laid out the research from others who have put in the blood, sweat, tears, and toil for their skills and knowledge. Plus, saying
"My citation is better than your citation" does not cut it. Wade is a respected journalist and he certainly does not read like he is blatantly lying. If he was then that would be of interest. Neither you nor the article have addressed even one of the points Wade made. Maybe Wade is wrong, I came to this article to find out. But there is no real content other than that the some people (including virologists) are passionate about not discussing the Wuhan case, and quick to censor any mention of it, or even to include a citation. That strongly suggests that Wade is correct, and I suspect that this will come out over the next few months. Tuntable (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I suspect that this will come out over the next few months.
Entirely possible, but also not our job to try and predict. WP:CRYSTAL Bakkster Man (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
And thank you for the Gorski paper. However, it does not address Wade's points directly. And it reads like an angry rant while Wade reads like a considered analysis of the facts. I think it is patently obvious that just given the points that I pulled from Wade above that the WIV is definitely a possible source, and it would be very difficult to disprove that given the records are sealed. But I would like more information on the technical arguments, the closeness to RaTG13, the codons used in the Furin cleavage site. But I don't see anything in either this article. The fact that it might have arisen naturally certainly does not prove that the WIV is innocent.Tuntable (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I might add that the Gorski paper mischaracterizes the Furin argument, which was that it uses human codons. It also mischaracterizes the RaTG13 argument, which is that the SARS-CoV-19 virus is almost identical to RaTG13 for most of it, except for the spike protein, suggesting that that RaTG13 was used as a backbone, and the spike stuff added. If there is a good paper that realistically refutes Wade, I have not seen it.
- Wade: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/
- Deigen on RaTG13: https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748
- Yan https://zenodo.org/record/4028830#.YK7UoqERWp3
Tuntable (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- You obviously do not understand why we have restrictions on sourcing. It is not because the not-so-good-sources are lying. (Well, some of them do.) It is because Wade, as a non-scientist, does not understand scientific subjects as well as a scientist does, and because the editors of "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" are specialists in something else and not competent to recognize his rookie mistakes and remove them. Therefore, Wade's piece is worthless as long as we have texts which were written by actual experts and checked by other experts. "Check what the source sounds like to you" is not part of the Wikipedia sourcing quality criteria.
- The only reason why any person would prefer Wade as a source is because Wade is saying what that person wants to hear. Trying to force Wade into articles is simply POV-pushing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Tuntable: If you can provide strong sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not WP:SELFPUB) about the FCS codons and spike protein elements, then I'm in favor of adding them (more likely to the Investigations article, depending on the source's reliability). Shouldn't be too hard, if Wade and Deigen are citing meaningful science (which Yan is not). Bakkster Man (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) OP, consensus is against you regarding the inclusion of your source, its claims, and non-WP:MEDRS in general. Consensus is also against you regarding the purpose of this article and even Wikipedia in general (rebutting fringe vs summarizing info from secondary sources with editorial oversight from experts independent of the subject). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Wuhan source "conspiracy" should be addressed because it is widespread
Even Biden suggesting it is plausible enough to require an investigation. It does not matter whether it is true or not. It does not matter who are the most eminent references. It needs to be properly addressed because it is now widespread. People will come to Wikipedia to determine whether it is true.
Having read the article, and the the talk, I still do not have any clear idea why the lab leak hypothesis is considered to be complete nonsense. I understand that many eminent people have said so, and that some of the technical arguments for the lab leak may be dubious. But I have not seen anywhere any proof that it is not possible.
To address it requires summarizing the case for and against. Many people (including myself) are much more interested in rational arguments than authoritative ones. To address the "conspiracy" the arguments put forth by the conspirators need to be stated clearly and succinctly, and then facts provided by eminent sources used to debunk them. Rather than agonizing on about a generic paragraph that gives appropriate weight, provide the facts and let the reader decide.
Personally, it appears obvious that the labs are suspicious because of geography, the lack of animal or human precursors, the fact that the WIV was doing gain-of-function research on coronoviruses at the time, and the fact that the Chinese government has closed access to relevant records, and that nobody has ever said that such a chimera could not, in theory, be created. That seems more than enough to make the conspiracy very plausible.
As @SSSheridan: points out, this consensus has changed recently, although I think there have always been substantial doubts. As @Eccekevin: points out, the WHO is a important but not infallible source. As @Spudst3r: points out, the discussion is not just scientific, but operational, as humanized mice could be the animal intermediatory. Certainly the Ebright concerns raised by @CutePeach: should be mentioned. The technical details for and against would make a very interesting article, as @Elle Kpyros: has suggested.
BTW. Do any of the eminent references provide evidence that the intermediatory could not be humanize mice? That would be interesting to know.
Incidentally, the WHO report said "There is no record of viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2 in any laboratory before December 2019," -- What about RaTG13? Also, did the WHO team actually study the WIV in any detail? And did the team include people closely associated with the WIV (like Peter Daszak)? Tuntable (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
As @Eccekevin: points out, the WHO is a important but not infallible source.
While I agree, you need to provide some kind of reliable, scholarly source making a contrary claim. If the WHO makes one claim, consistent with a bunch of other high quality papers, and the best we can find making a link to humanized mice is a non-MEDLINE article from a single non-virologist, then even if we cite such a paper it would indicate its WP:FRINGE/ALT status by being stuck in a less prestigious journal by a non-expert. If it's a clear issue, it's an easy fix. So provide the links. Though I'll warn, they probably would need to go in the Investigations article (where there's a good argument MEDRS doesn't apply) rather than here (where there's a good argument MEDRS does apply).Do any of the eminent references provide evidence that the intermediatory could not be humanize mice? That would be interesting to know.
To reiterate, unless we have a reliable source that suggests they could be the intermediary, why would we cite a source source saying a thing wasn't possible. We'd have a hella long article if we had to list and cite every possibility that was ruled out that nobody suggested should be considered in the first place. Sure, we ruled out a meteor, but did we rule out a comet? What about Martians? Titans? Alpha Centaurans?- Here's the thing about the whole debate. Even if you think the explanation is most likely to be true (it might be) and the scientific establishment is suppressing it (they might be) and that the truth will eventually come out, then until it does WP policy still says we should give the credibility to the credible sources, until the situation changes. And it's why we changed our writing on the topic after the WHO study was published, the mainstream view had changed and we reflected that. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia, we do need sources in order to stop nonsense flat earth theories being presented as fact. But that does not mean that as editors we cannot apply common sense and make sensible deductions. The goal is to produce good articles, not just mindlessly follow some bureaucratic process.
- While the scientific literature might be the major source for scientific truth, it is not the only source for what should be included in an article. One thing to consider is what people that consume the article might be wanting to find out. That is, ultimately, the goal of the exercise. And the Scientific literature has no bearing on that.
- It is completely obvious that many people are concerned that the virus may have leaked from WIV. The reasons that I gave for plausibility are obviously solid, and none of the scientific literature disagrees with them. And it is equally obvious that humanized mice are used for gain-of-function research, which is why it is obviously important to know whether that is technically feasible.
- I am not for a moment suggesting that the article should say that the conspiracy theories are correct. But the fact that readers (like myself) what to know is reason enough to deal with them.
- In this case, we also know that some of the scientific opinions have been written by people that have a vested interest (E.g. Dazsag, and Shi).
- I would add that the following paragraph reads like a rant rather than a sober, Wikipedian analysis.
- Yet, its origin, which remains unknown, have become debated within the context of global geopolitical tensions. Early in the pandemic, conspiracy theories spread on social media claiming that the virus was a biological weapon developed by China, amplified by echo chambers in the American far-right. Other conspiracy theories promoted misinformation that the virus is not communicable or was created to profit from new vaccines.
- This led me (and I suspect many other readers) to suspect that it was written by members of the Chinese government, a suspicion that I still hold.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2021
There are currently five list-defined references unused in the article, which is creating an error. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Done in revision 1026837835 by Boghog (talk). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Nucleotide skewness of SARS-CoV-2
In biology, markov models that describe changes over evolutionary time of the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 are called Substitution models. Its genes are sequence of symbols (RNA has a four nucleotide alphabet) which can used to compute the likelihood of phylogenetic trees using multiple sequence alignment data. When we see the famous estimate of evolutionary distance of SARS-CoV to RatG13 being between 20 and 90 years, that was made by the use of Substitution models. The majority of substitution models used for evolutionary research assume independence among sites (i.e., the probability of observing any specific site pattern is identical regardless of where the site pattern is in the sequence alignment). Wang, Pipes, and Nielsen (2020) observe that the literature has been inconclusive on fully reconstructing the evolutionary history of SARS-CoV-2 because nonsynonimous mutations suggest different conclusion than synonimous mutations. The estimation of synonimous mutations is "complicated" by the skewed distribution of nucleotide frequencies in synonimous sites of SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, I propose we include the fact that SARS-CoV-2 has a skewed distribution of nucleotide frequencies in its synonimous sites. Forich (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- The reference: Hongru Wang, Lenore Pipes, Rasmus Nielsen, Synonymous mutations and the molecular evolution of SARS-CoV-2 origins, Virus Evolution, Volume 7, Issue 1, January 2021, veaa098, https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/veaa098 Forich (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- While interesting, I'm curious why the focus on the 'skew'. The paper appears to suggest this is just a complicating factor in determining the phylogenetic tree, and I didn't see any particular conclusions based on it beyond just refining the estimate of divergence with RaTG13/RmYN02. Am I missing something? Bakkster Man (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)