did people or nature open pandoras box at wuhan

Rutgers professor Richard Ebright noted that the conflicts of interest involving virologists denying that the pandemic could have come from a laboratory in Wuhan were 'simply unprecedented.' Īccording to Politico, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Stilwell was shocked by the letter and its complete dismissal the lab leak possibility, saying that it was apparent that 'the science world was not playing above board.' Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that 'Contrary to the letter writers' assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy.' Wade opined that the signatories of the Lancet letter behaved as 'poor scientists' for 'assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.' Further criticism of the letter was focused on the fact that, according to emails obtained through FOIA, members involved in producing the letter concealed their involvement 'to create the impression of scientific unanimity' and failed to disclose conflicts. The letter was deemed to have 'effectively ended the debate over COVID-19’s origins before it began'.

are doing the work of conspiracy theorists'. Journalist Katherine Eban wrote in Vanity Fair that the letter had a 'chilling effect' on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who 'bring up the lab-leak theory. Sometimes that system breaks down, and in this particular case Peter Daszak should certainly have declared his competing interests right at the beginning.' Horton said to the committee 'We trust authors to be honest with us and authors trust us to deal with their work confidentially and appropriately. Horton later responded in a UK parliament session. Metzel wrote to Lancet editor Richard Horton to flag Daszak's conflict of interest, but received no response. The letter was criticized by media commentator Jamie Metzl for 'scientific propaganda and thuggery'. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, social scientist Filippa Lentzos said that the letter's conclusion was premature, saying that some scientists 'closed ranks', fearing for their careers and grants. Reception Critical commentary Īccording to journalist Paul Thacker, the Lancet letter 'helped to guide almost a year of reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak’s message and to silence scientific and public debate.' This affected reporting on the origins of the virus, 'characterising the lab leak theory as unworthy of serious consideration'. Some signatories of the Lancet letter, such as Stanley Perlman and Linda Saif, said they were focused on dispelling these rumours, though the letter did not make this distinguishment, as Daszak insisted on a 'broad statement'. Some early rumors focused on the deliberate leak of a virus as a bioweapon or accidental leak of an engineered virus. Different versions of the lab origin hypothesis present different scenarios in which a bat-borne progenitor of SARS-COV-2 may have spilled over to humans, including a laboratory-acquired infection of a natural or engineered virus.

Background įrom the early outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, rumors and speculation arose about the possible lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 disease. The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated. The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a petition. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as ' conspiracy theories'. The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al.

Did people or nature open pandoras box at wuhan