Nicholas Wade at The Bulletin:
From early on, public and media perceptions were shaped in favor of the natural emergence scenario by strong statements from two scientific groups. These statements were not at first examined as critically as they should have been.
“We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,” a group of virologists and others wrote in the Lancet on February 19, 2020, when it was really far too soon for anyone to be sure what had happened. Scientists “overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,” they said, with a stirring rallying call for readers to stand with Chinese colleagues on the frontline of fighting the disease.
Contrary to the letter writers’ assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy. It surely needed to be explored, not rejected out of hand. A defining mark of good scientists is that they go to great pains to distinguish between what they know and what they don’t know. By this criterion, the signatories of the Lancet letter were behaving as poor scientists: They were assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true.
It later turned out that the Lancet letter had been organized and drafted by Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance of New York. Daszak’s organization funded coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. If the SARS2 virus had indeed escaped from research he funded, Daszak would be potentially culpable. This acute conflict of interest was not declared to the Lancet’s readers. To the contrary, the letter concluded, “We declare no competing interests.”
Virologists like Daszak had much at stake in the assigning of blame for the pandemic. For 20 years, mostly beneath the public’s attention, they had been playing a dangerous game. – May 5, 2021
Scientists playing fast and lose with reality were able to leverage public panic among simple-minded people demanding lockdowns, crackdowns, shakedowns, and freakouts against anyone who had the good sense to question the crazy – or worse, wonder just what DID happen in Wuhan.
See also: How Twitter cut off a reasoned discussion of the COVID response.
You may also wish to read: Will the war on objectivity in news media spread to science? Has it already? Trust in science will deteriorate if, like many journalists today, scientists come to see objectivity as worth sacrificing in order to achieve other goals.
2 Replies to “Trust the Science! chronicles: The origin of COVID and Wuhan”
Science is objective if it doesn’t have any political implications.
As soon as it does, the conclusions must be in sync with the politics. Scientists want to eat too.
There is plenty of science that gets done without a complaint from anyone. Why? It has no known political implications.
Of course Sabine Hassenfelder points out that lots of so called science is not science.
An article from two years ago on the virus by Wade.