NIH’s axing of bat coronavirus grant a ‘horrible precedent’

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/nih-s-axing-bat-coronavirus-grant-horrible-precedent-and-might-break-rules-critics-say

by HarryHirsch • 6 years ago

43 46 6 years ago

sciencemag.org

quadrangle• 6 years ago

How am I supposed to make sense of the conflicts-of-interest here? Obviously, this sort of scientific research has merit. Obviously, it isn't 100% free of risk. I haven't heard any claims of certainty around the origin of the current virus. How do we figure out the line between acknowledging that a hypothesis has inadequate evidence versus asserting it to be wrong because we don't like the ramifications or we don't like the overconfidence of people asserting too-quickly that it is true?

eli_gottlieb• 6 years ago

Usually, when you're doing good science and letting the evidence speak for itself, you don't terminate anyone's grants in the middle of the study without notice.

hirundo• 6 years ago

Weigh the importance of the research against the risk of the research process itself causing tens of thousands of deaths, and the confidence that the researchers have sufficiently protected against that risk.

Anyone who has that kind of confidence in the Wuhan laboratory researchers is operating from a different set of facts than I am.

gumby4• 6 years ago

Anyone who has that kind of confidence in the Wuhan laboratory researchers is operating from a different set of facts than I am.

What set of facts do you have access to? I haven’t any reason to believe that lab is particularly bad, so would be glad to learn something additional.

BearOso2• 6 years ago

It's certainly possible it came from a lab. The problem here is political interest. Some on the left are downplaying the lab aspect in favor of a natural origin because some on the right are using the Chinese origin as a basis for racism.

If it came from a lab in China, that doesn't make it a "Chinese" virus. Don't we have labs studying dangerous diseases in the US? People make mistakes. It's better to find the true cause and learn from it, human or not.

gumby4• 6 years ago

It's certainly possible it came from a lab.

Quite a few significant geneticists consider it extremely unlikely: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Sure, it’s possible, but that probability appears to be extremely small.

Edit: I just realized you might have meant “natural origins but escaped from the lab rather than being introduced directly from wild animals”. If that’s what you meant apologies that my reply is irrelevant. If you meant “deliberately engineered in a lab” then my reply stands. I don’t see science as a “left/right” issue.

cameldrv2• 6 years ago

What is the argument in that paper?

BearOso2• 6 years ago

I did mean escaped. There’s plenty of labs that were studying SARS, so it’s not impossible. I agree that we should look at only the facts, but political groups on all sides are twisting them for own convenience, so you have to be skeptical of motivations right now.

DangitBobby2• 6 years ago

I think people on the left are downplaying it primarily because 1) there's literally no evidence that it happened that way and 2) the mere speculation is being treated as "truth" by some liars to spread fear and hate, and to confuse, distract, and deflect.

Exmoor• 6 years ago

1) there's literally no evidence that it happened that way

There's no smoking gun evidence that is accessible, and there likely never will be. There is some circumstantial evidence that seems compelling. We know that scientists in Wuhan were working on this exact type of virus and were also working to make it transmissible in humans. We also know that there were issues reported in safety protocols at this/these labs. Finally, we know that the virus outbreak happened in the same city (and possibly within a very short distance) of these labs.

Presumably (I have no data on this and would love some from anyone who knows more), there are not many labs doing this sort of research, so the fact that the virus appeared in the immediate vicinity of one of the few labs where they were doing this research seems like a heck of a coincidence. It's not a smoking gun, but I'm a little concerned to see people in the scientific community writing it off as a near-impossibility. What's wrong with saying, "We think that this is unlikely given xyz, but the circumstantial evidence is concerning and we should reevaluate all research of this type."

ghufran_syed• 6 years ago

does “anti-chinese government” = “anti-chinese” = racism?

If so, would that mean that “anti-american government” views by many people the world = “anti-american” = racism?

ctchocula• 6 years ago

You and I can appreciate the subtle distinction that "anti-chinese government" != "anti-chinese", but tribalist thinking that equates "anti-chinese government" with "anti-chinese actions" exploits subconscious pathways of the human brain, so that it feels "natural" or "easy" to think that way. That is why during COVID-19, even one month ago we have already seen over 600 anti-Chinese and anti-Asian racism in the US [1], and a racially-motivated stabbing in Montreal [2]. Even in the Silicon Valley which is considered a liberal bastion, we have seen racist attacks against Asian-Americans [3].

All of these examples show that even though you and I can draw a difference between a government and its people and therefore do not do racist attacks against random people of a certain nationality, I hope you can see that calling it the "China virus" can compel others do racist attacks. Using reason to fight 600 million years of evolution is hard.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/asian-americans-r...

[2] https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/covid-19-korean-consulate-issues...

[3] https://nextshark.com/silicon-valley-supermarket-xenophobic-...

gregwebs4• 6 years ago

What's missing in this article but well reported on in Newsweek [1] is that these studies included "gain of function" research, which means attempts to make viruses human transmissible. This type of research is extremely dangerous and very controversial within the scientific community and that portion should certainly be stopped.

Almost all of the attention has been focused on the lab receiving these grants. However, that lab is miles away from the initial outbreak and there's another lab that's a block away from the Wuhan seafood market that also does bat research (but not gain of function). This lab is also adjacent to the hospital that dealt with initial outbreak. This was pointed out by Chinese researchers in a preprint that was quickly taken down [2].

1: https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan...

2: The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus 10.13140/RG.2.2.21799.29601 https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.resea...

pacala7• 6 years ago

Just wow.

We have a bunch of guys knowingly playing with fire. Then out of nowhere a major inferno starts within spitting distance from their playground. And the US tax payers have the moral duty to fund foreign nationals to enact this charade in a foreign country?

petre3• 6 years ago

It doesn't matter much where it originated now, the lab or the market. US tax payers should not fund such research. China tried to cover up the incident and has failed to stop the virus escape to other countries. They should be held accountable for this. The US is one of the few countries in the position to issue punitive measures. Others may follow. I am going to refrain from buying goods from the PRC after this.

gregwebs4• 6 years ago

I disagree with this point of view. It only encourages covering things up. The US frequently has it's own lab incidents including even with anthrax (this was reported in some of the Newsweek articles). There's no indication of carelessness or violations of lab procedures in the Chinese labs yet. This could have happened anywhere in the world.

The problem now is that there is no real investigation into the true source of the outbreak. That is all we should be demanding right now. And if it turns out to have escaped from the lab that does not imply a need for punishment beyond perhaps the lab director and those in an oversight position.

What is more important is probably to recognize how dangerous it is to work with bats and that much greater safety precautions be taken with them even when not working on gain of function research. And the entire world needs to learn how to research infectious diseases in a safer way that doesn't create outbreaks.

Barrin922• 6 years ago

Then out of nowhere a major inferno starts within spitting distance from their playground

Instead of descending into conspiracy logic, two things need to be pointed out.

1. This virus did not come "out of nowhere", zoonotic corona viruses are common, and as you probably know at this point have started pandemics multiple times over recent years. This was not an unexpected event, it was a matter of time, which is why people like Gates as well as the scientific community have been warning us for years.

2. That labs studying those diseases are found in close proximity to the locations where they're prone to break out doesn't imply anything. Fire stations tend to be close to the places where fires are common, doesn't mean they cause them.

It's sad to see that the blind tribalism in the absence of any evidence is even taking place on this site.

tanzbaer• 6 years ago

Firefighters are designed to be close to places that could burn down so that they can respond quickly. A research institution has no such incentive.

gregwebs4• 6 years ago

I agree that this outbreak was expected, but I don't think it was expected to occur a block away from a lab that studies bats. These labs obtained bats from hundreds of miles away. Those areas (with huge bat populations) seem like more likely sources of an outbreak even if there are bats in cities as well. I believe this is strong enough circumstantial (not conspiratorial) evidence that we should be demanding an investigation into whether the labs could have accidentally released the virus.

pacala7• 6 years ago

There will be a coronavirus pandemic != There will be a lethal coronavirus pandemic starting in Wuhan.

I'm not aware that Wuhan was regarded as breeding ground for human transmissible lethal coronaviruses prior to 2020. Do you happen to have a source for that?

Edit. Added 'lethal', as common cold is also a coronavirus in 15% of the instances.

twelve403• 6 years ago

Even if it did start there by negligence - or even malice - I as s US taxpayer would still be extremely interested in keeping as many threads going as possible to understand what happened, even if it involves input from foreign nationals with possible agendas of their own, if it helps us get closer to the truth.

dang2• 6 years ago

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. This comment is a noticeable and gratuitous step down in quality from the parent. It's fine to disagree, of course, but do so substantively and not with battle rhetoric.

Edit: I've detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23052700.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pacala7• 6 years ago

I responded in kind to the OP title, claiming that to cut funding to an incredibly dangerous practice is a ‘horrible precedent’. Quote from none other than a business partner of the principal in question.

For balance, consider crafting a less inflammatory title.

ficklepickle• 6 years ago

Here is an example of engineering SARS to be deadlier in 2015[0].

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985

NIH’s axing of bat coronavirus grant a ‘horrible precedent’

Related Stories