I sent your note to my son, who is a serious molecular biologist (Stanford Ph. D. With 30 years of research including founding a major bio-tech company) and he basically flipped out. Let me summarize what he said, after I calmed him down.
Viral evolution and transmission between species is both incredibly complex and very common. Viruses are always trying to infect new species. Such infections fail 99.999% of the time because the new host immune system usually can kill the new virus before the new virus can evolve enough to survive in the new environment. Even if the virus survives, it must both evolve even more to successfully infect other hosts of the same new species and be lucky enough to find another infectable member of the new species before it kills its host. Because the process is both complex and only observed as a really rare success, it’s truly random. As a result we hardly ever have a simple “story line” and really weird things happen. Bat viruses probably infect thousands of pangolins every year. Out of those hundreds of thousands of events, over many years, two cases successfully “took” and randomly showed up within a week of each other in Wuhan. That’s the story.
Nature of spread of the virus in human populations, and in animal/bird populations, will inform theories of origin. But little is known about the latter, so constructing a theory without it is bound to be tenuous. Even the simplest model - an accidental or deliberate infection of just one lab worker - is up against the now-known topology of SARS-CoV-2 spread - up to 40% of infections do not cause symptoms.
Where's Michael Crichton when we really need him??
Speaking of Crichton, his classic Cal Tech lecture from twenty years ago is still remarkably timely. If any here have not yet run across it, here's a link:
(Sorry about the size of that. There must be a way to slim it down, but it's beyond me.)
Here's Crichton, at the top: “I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science – namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.”
A great companion piece for Roger's Senate testimony from last week.
BTW: The late Steven Schneider has one of my favorite quotes about the temptation to corruption in science (he's in favor!): "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
There really is no "other hand." Intellectual Integrity in science is extremely important and extraordinarily difficult to maintain. A drop of the political destroys that in a heartbeat, which is the primary reason that science is undergoing a serious credibility crisis.
I think you're right about that. There's a game of telephone starting with well-meaning experts like Professor Schneider, through well-meaning climate journalists and well-meaning elected leaders, all performing as they think most effective to save the world from climate change. Problem is, scientists shouldn't be performers - that's for the advocates downstream.
Is there a link or source for the Schneider quote? TIA.
The quote is from an interview in Discover magazine in Oct 1989. The original article is a little hard to find...pretty sure I have a link somewhere, but Wikipedia is a great stand-in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider_(scientist).
The zoonotic story line would have to include an intermediate host to get the virus from the resevoir host (bats) to humans. China has conducted an exhaustive search for an intermediate host, which would support their narrative of zoonotic spillover. So far they have not found one, even though previous outbreaks of zoonotic spillover found the intermediate host within a matter of months.
If you review the activities and expenses in Billions of the foundations which were heavily involved with the lead-in to lockdown (Event 201, funding of Imperial College), etc) and heavily invested in the vaccines, why would they leave the release of the virus to chance?
You should read the book "Viral" by Dr. Alina Chan, a postdoctoral researcher in medical genetics, synthetic biology and vector engineering at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and author Matt Ridley, who wrote the bestseller "Genome" and has written several articles in the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator about the origin and genomics of SARS CoV-2. During the pandemic, Dr. Chan conducted an extensive investigation of the possible origins of SARS CoV-2. The book makes a strong case for a lab release origin from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Anyone who argues in good faith for zoontic transmission of SARS COV 2 has to admit that a lab leak is at least plausible - it requires less explanation. What isn't expected, however, is after examining over a thousand various corona viruses and experimenting with the likely transmission of these to humans, researchers had no information to offer on how best to combat the pathogen - other than hand-wringing.
100%. People can disagree on which theory is more likely to be true, but anyone dismissing the lab leak theory out of hand isn’t serious, unless they have some inside information.
The first step to get good answers is to ask the right questions. I think you have done that very nicely in this post!
Last weekend’s Wagner mutiny is another example of using storylines to figure out what happened. Initially it was not clear if there was a coup or mutiny or simply nothing.
Some typos:
Is it the Hunan or Huanan market? You use the first spelling but the Pekar quote uses the second one.
The drawing looked like a Pangolin, and I didn’t check it. I should have put intermediate host. Surprised that no one else noticed. Good catch!
I sent your note to my son, who is a serious molecular biologist (Stanford Ph. D. With 30 years of research including founding a major bio-tech company) and he basically flipped out. Let me summarize what he said, after I calmed him down.
Viral evolution and transmission between species is both incredibly complex and very common. Viruses are always trying to infect new species. Such infections fail 99.999% of the time because the new host immune system usually can kill the new virus before the new virus can evolve enough to survive in the new environment. Even if the virus survives, it must both evolve even more to successfully infect other hosts of the same new species and be lucky enough to find another infectable member of the new species before it kills its host. Because the process is both complex and only observed as a really rare success, it’s truly random. As a result we hardly ever have a simple “story line” and really weird things happen. Bat viruses probably infect thousands of pangolins every year. Out of those hundreds of thousands of events, over many years, two cases successfully “took” and randomly showed up within a week of each other in Wuhan. That’s the story.
Pangolins in Wuhan? Where (outside of WIV, of course)?
Perfectly reasonable, but not a storyline.
Nature of spread of the virus in human populations, and in animal/bird populations, will inform theories of origin. But little is known about the latter, so constructing a theory without it is bound to be tenuous. Even the simplest model - an accidental or deliberate infection of just one lab worker - is up against the now-known topology of SARS-CoV-2 spread - up to 40% of infections do not cause symptoms.
Where's Michael Crichton when we really need him??
Speaking of Crichton, his classic Cal Tech lecture from twenty years ago is still remarkably timely. If any here have not yet run across it, here's a link:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj0xaOsoOT_AhVXKFkFHTZpDKgQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstephenschneider.stanford.edu%2FPublications%2FPDF_Papers%2FCrichton2003.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2iWOlb-lzlS5yY4oF3aiJE&opi=89978449
(Sorry about the size of that. There must be a way to slim it down, but it's beyond me.)
Here's Crichton, at the top: “I want to discuss the history of several widely-publicized beliefs and to point to what I consider an emerging crisis in the whole enterprise of science – namely the increasingly uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.”
A great companion piece for Roger's Senate testimony from last week.
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
BTW: The late Steven Schneider has one of my favorite quotes about the temptation to corruption in science (he's in favor!): "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
There really is no "other hand." Intellectual Integrity in science is extremely important and extraordinarily difficult to maintain. A drop of the political destroys that in a heartbeat, which is the primary reason that science is undergoing a serious credibility crisis.
I think you're right about that. There's a game of telephone starting with well-meaning experts like Professor Schneider, through well-meaning climate journalists and well-meaning elected leaders, all performing as they think most effective to save the world from climate change. Problem is, scientists shouldn't be performers - that's for the advocates downstream.
Is there a link or source for the Schneider quote? TIA.
The quote is from an interview in Discover magazine in Oct 1989. The original article is a little hard to find...pretty sure I have a link somewhere, but Wikipedia is a great stand-in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider_(scientist).
He was widely pilloried for it, and rightly so. He doubled down and advocated strongly for scientists to push politics (https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html).
The zoonotic story line would have to include an intermediate host to get the virus from the resevoir host (bats) to humans. China has conducted an exhaustive search for an intermediate host, which would support their narrative of zoonotic spillover. So far they have not found one, even though previous outbreaks of zoonotic spillover found the intermediate host within a matter of months.
If you review the activities and expenses in Billions of the foundations which were heavily involved with the lead-in to lockdown (Event 201, funding of Imperial College), etc) and heavily invested in the vaccines, why would they leave the release of the virus to chance?
You should read the book "Viral" by Dr. Alina Chan, a postdoctoral researcher in medical genetics, synthetic biology and vector engineering at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and author Matt Ridley, who wrote the bestseller "Genome" and has written several articles in the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator about the origin and genomics of SARS CoV-2. During the pandemic, Dr. Chan conducted an extensive investigation of the possible origins of SARS CoV-2. The book makes a strong case for a lab release origin from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
FYI here is my review of Viral
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/book-review-viral-the-search-for
Anyone who argues in good faith for zoontic transmission of SARS COV 2 has to admit that a lab leak is at least plausible - it requires less explanation. What isn't expected, however, is after examining over a thousand various corona viruses and experimenting with the likely transmission of these to humans, researchers had no information to offer on how best to combat the pathogen - other than hand-wringing.
100%. People can disagree on which theory is more likely to be true, but anyone dismissing the lab leak theory out of hand isn’t serious, unless they have some inside information.
The first step to get good answers is to ask the right questions. I think you have done that very nicely in this post!
Last weekend’s Wagner mutiny is another example of using storylines to figure out what happened. Initially it was not clear if there was a coup or mutiny or simply nothing.
Some typos:
Is it the Hunan or Huanan market? You use the first spelling but the Pekar quote uses the second one.
By “25 November 2020” you probably meant 2019.
Thanks for the close read!
"at a rime when" should be "at a time when"
Otherwise, GREAT POST!!!
Thanks for the sharp eyes, much appreciated!