Just finished it, excellent work, you really are a skilled and dogged researcher.
What jumped out to me was the tragic intransigence of the Wuhan lab defenders in the face of contrary evidence. The "no live bats in our lab" bit turned straight to comedy!
This reminds me of the old game show, $20,000 Pyramid, in which one half of a contestant team would make tangential statements around a topic statement, and the other player would have to guess what that topic was.
One contestant; "I feed the bats when the students are away"
"I have bagged a dozed bats to bring back for further study"
"It hurts like a needle jab when bats bite you"
"We have 12 cages for bats"
"We have applied for a patent for our bat cage"
Second contestant--"Things you say when you have bats in your lab!"
It is also somewhat inadvisable in today's black-or-white (or dare I say red-or-blue) political discourse. or rather, lack-of-discourse. As witnessed by anybody who is, say, pro-Judaism *and* pro-two-states-solution.
Inadvisable? How do you mean? I'd be more inclined to say rejecting these pick-your-poison dichotomies has to get a lot more popular if we're going to have any chance of learning - fast enough - to act rationally at scale.
"Research can be weighted toward response rather than prediction; these overlap but aren’t identical."
If we were to weigh the human cost of predictive vs. responsive research in viral research over the decades, it would seem to me that "predictive" is the less desirable path, particularly if SARS-CoV-2 ends up falling into that category.
In Failure Mode analysis, a Risk Priority Number (RPN) = S×P×D where S is the severity of the effect of failure, P is the probability of failure, and D is the ease of failure detection. RPN is used to prioritize prevention/remediation efforts.
Your piece does not give the impression that much failure mode analysis was performed in many (most?) of the events and situations outlined. Sadly, I also suspect that "the probability of failure" could be freely substituted with "the probability of researcher hubris" without altering the results.
"Some scientists have proposed imposing stricter controls and a stronger risk-benefit analysis for research on pathogens that could inadvertently spark pandemics."
Thank you. This is an aspect that has been massively neglected. I am not opposed to research, but I have not seen any evidence that gain-of-function or any of the other research has been of benefit even if lab escape is not the source of COVID. We are just not having a rational discussion about this and how best to deploy resources to prepare for the next time.
The article doesn't mention gain-of-function because it's now a dirty word, but if you read between the lines, they would have done GoF work to adapt the mentioned coronaviruses to mice so the pathogenic effects can be easily studied.
A wonderful piece even by your standards - a high bar! I'll be pointing out to many friends of different stripes that this is what it looks like when seeking the truth is your only concern.
I guess it's a measure of my own strangeness that I find it *especially* satisfying that there's no tidy answer that wraps everything up. Here is what we know; here is what we don't know, and why; here is what we may never know. Here are the critical lessons we must learn anyway.
Wow. All of the information backed up and linked to sources, just wonderfully balanced and presented. I wish the NYT allowed comments on this piece so I could tell readers how fortunate they are to have your work.
I know you left out much more, but that was in order to make your case. It al came together so well.
I read it, and found the information about the relative frequency of leakage from supposedly high-safety labs to provide interesting context. Reading about the cloud of obfuscation surrounding the Wuhan lab practices was also new to me, perhaps because I haven't done much homework on this issue!
Even so, and I think you acknowledge this, there isn't enough public evidence to settle the origin question definitively. Given how closed China is, we may not know for years what really happened, if ever.
Secondly, for folks who like to use DNA similarity between SARS-Cov2 and some wild bat viruses (96.4%, I think) as one of the dots connecting the Wuhan lab to this pandemic, I'd like to point out that humans and Chimps share 98.8% of their DNA. To my mind, the similarity may still be relevant, but a lot more dots on that path are needed to make the case than I have seen offered up to now. IOW, this piece of info is more distraction than evidence at the moment, so I'm not sure why you included it in your article, especially given the disclaimer you threw in.
The lack of disclosure around it—and the fact that they had extensively sampled from that every mine—makes it pretty relevant, though indeed that particular one is not a precursor. Whatever was in that mine caused what looks very much like a bat-to-human infection, killed three people and then there was extensive sampling from it including attempts to cultivate viruses sampled there. And for some unclear reason all that was not mentioned in the very first paper on it, which is really odd, and it took a bunch of internet sleuths to dig it up and only then was very basic facts acknowledged and not even fully. (Which is another big problem with our media and scientific establishment—the science teacher who dug up the relevant papers did it with Google translate and a few days). So yeah, it goes both to credibility and also: what else is not being disclosed? It's a very weird episode.
Zeynep, different topic -- what is the story on the Delta variant? I hear it is more transmissible, but less deadly; more transmissible, but equally deadly; or more transmissible, but more deadly. The answer kind of contributes to the origins story as most viruses will mutate to less deadly versions, but a man-made virus might act differently.
It is certainly more transmissible, and likely causing more severe disease—the latter is a bit harder to disentangle but we have two separate studies from the UK, and one already published in the Lancet. Unfortunately. That said, I don't think there is a rule that viruses mutate to become less deadly—at least not in the short term, and not as long as the severity doesn't interfere with their transmissibility which is the real selection pressure. Might do a post (or try to invite a guest post) on that!
Adding to that, I keep running across mention that Delta can break through the J&J vaccine more easily. Should those of us who got J&J starting taking more precautions again?
I think there may be a single Pfizer or Moderna booster recommendation to J&J folks at some point—not just the risk to them which remains low but a symptomatic breakthrough can potentially transmit.
Thank you for this fantastic work! On the issue of prediction/response, hoping that technologies like the mRNA vaccine platform and computer simulation can further obviate the need for dangerous research.
Thank you! I have tens of thousands of *written* words on this we ended up cutting or summarizing. Some of the topics are fascinating — at least to me — on what we can learn from aviation and other complex systems that have instituted safety cultures.
Fascinating combination of science and politics in an authoritarian regime. I had thought of the Tuskeegee experiment, but there the subjects weren’t given the syphilis — those who had it already had it.
Have you read anything about the vaccine trials for Sinovac? Did those follow recognized protocols?
Thanks for publishing the analysis, Zeynep. Looking forward to reading more on this from you here. If you feel comfortable saying, how did you decide what to say or omit about the conflicts and disingenuousness (or worse) of EcoHealth Alliance?
Just finished it, excellent work, you really are a skilled and dogged researcher.
What jumped out to me was the tragic intransigence of the Wuhan lab defenders in the face of contrary evidence. The "no live bats in our lab" bit turned straight to comedy!
This reminds me of the old game show, $20,000 Pyramid, in which one half of a contestant team would make tangential statements around a topic statement, and the other player would have to guess what that topic was.
One contestant; "I feed the bats when the students are away"
"I have bagged a dozed bats to bring back for further study"
"It hurts like a needle jab when bats bite you"
"We have 12 cages for bats"
"We have applied for a patent for our bat cage"
Second contestant--"Things you say when you have bats in your lab!"
What an amazing article. Thank you.
It is possible to oppose anti-Chinese racism and the Chinese ruling class at the same time!!
It is also somewhat inadvisable in today's black-or-white (or dare I say red-or-blue) political discourse. or rather, lack-of-discourse. As witnessed by anybody who is, say, pro-Judaism *and* pro-two-states-solution.
Inadvisable? How do you mean? I'd be more inclined to say rejecting these pick-your-poison dichotomies has to get a lot more popular if we're going to have any chance of learning - fast enough - to act rationally at scale.
I agree wholeheartedly. The question is how to get there.
"Research can be weighted toward response rather than prediction; these overlap but aren’t identical."
If we were to weigh the human cost of predictive vs. responsive research in viral research over the decades, it would seem to me that "predictive" is the less desirable path, particularly if SARS-CoV-2 ends up falling into that category.
In Failure Mode analysis, a Risk Priority Number (RPN) = S×P×D where S is the severity of the effect of failure, P is the probability of failure, and D is the ease of failure detection. RPN is used to prioritize prevention/remediation efforts.
Your piece does not give the impression that much failure mode analysis was performed in many (most?) of the events and situations outlined. Sadly, I also suspect that "the probability of failure" could be freely substituted with "the probability of researcher hubris" without altering the results.
"Some scientists have proposed imposing stricter controls and a stronger risk-benefit analysis for research on pathogens that could inadvertently spark pandemics."
Thank you. This is an aspect that has been massively neglected. I am not opposed to research, but I have not seen any evidence that gain-of-function or any of the other research has been of benefit even if lab escape is not the source of COVID. We are just not having a rational discussion about this and how best to deploy resources to prepare for the next time.
Thank you! I have asked a lot of the scientists this question, and will write a post with my thoughts on this.
Here's some evidence: https://uncnews.unc.edu/2021/06/22/coronavirus-vaccine/
The article doesn't mention gain-of-function because it's now a dirty word, but if you read between the lines, they would have done GoF work to adapt the mentioned coronaviruses to mice so the pathogenic effects can be easily studied.
Interesting. Thank you. I don't see how GoF was needed here - wouldn't they just use transgenic mice?
Ooops - meant to quote this part - " Research can be weighted toward response rather than prediction; these overlap but aren’t identical."
A wonderful piece even by your standards - a high bar! I'll be pointing out to many friends of different stripes that this is what it looks like when seeking the truth is your only concern.
I guess it's a measure of my own strangeness that I find it *especially* satisfying that there's no tidy answer that wraps everything up. Here is what we know; here is what we don't know, and why; here is what we may never know. Here are the critical lessons we must learn anyway.
Wow. All of the information backed up and linked to sources, just wonderfully balanced and presented. I wish the NYT allowed comments on this piece so I could tell readers how fortunate they are to have your work.
I know you left out much more, but that was in order to make your case. It al came together so well.
Just wow.
I read it, and found the information about the relative frequency of leakage from supposedly high-safety labs to provide interesting context. Reading about the cloud of obfuscation surrounding the Wuhan lab practices was also new to me, perhaps because I haven't done much homework on this issue!
Even so, and I think you acknowledge this, there isn't enough public evidence to settle the origin question definitively. Given how closed China is, we may not know for years what really happened, if ever.
Secondly, for folks who like to use DNA similarity between SARS-Cov2 and some wild bat viruses (96.4%, I think) as one of the dots connecting the Wuhan lab to this pandemic, I'd like to point out that humans and Chimps share 98.8% of their DNA. To my mind, the similarity may still be relevant, but a lot more dots on that path are needed to make the case than I have seen offered up to now. IOW, this piece of info is more distraction than evidence at the moment, so I'm not sure why you included it in your article, especially given the disclaimer you threw in.
The lack of disclosure around it—and the fact that they had extensively sampled from that every mine—makes it pretty relevant, though indeed that particular one is not a precursor. Whatever was in that mine caused what looks very much like a bat-to-human infection, killed three people and then there was extensive sampling from it including attempts to cultivate viruses sampled there. And for some unclear reason all that was not mentioned in the very first paper on it, which is really odd, and it took a bunch of internet sleuths to dig it up and only then was very basic facts acknowledged and not even fully. (Which is another big problem with our media and scientific establishment—the science teacher who dug up the relevant papers did it with Google translate and a few days). So yeah, it goes both to credibility and also: what else is not being disclosed? It's a very weird episode.
Zeynep, different topic -- what is the story on the Delta variant? I hear it is more transmissible, but less deadly; more transmissible, but equally deadly; or more transmissible, but more deadly. The answer kind of contributes to the origins story as most viruses will mutate to less deadly versions, but a man-made virus might act differently.
It is certainly more transmissible, and likely causing more severe disease—the latter is a bit harder to disentangle but we have two separate studies from the UK, and one already published in the Lancet. Unfortunately. That said, I don't think there is a rule that viruses mutate to become less deadly—at least not in the short term, and not as long as the severity doesn't interfere with their transmissibility which is the real selection pressure. Might do a post (or try to invite a guest post) on that!
Adding to that, I keep running across mention that Delta can break through the J&J vaccine more easily. Should those of us who got J&J starting taking more precautions again?
I think there may be a single Pfizer or Moderna booster recommendation to J&J folks at some point—not just the risk to them which remains low but a symptomatic breakthrough can potentially transmit.
Yes, been thinking about the transmission, too, especially as my younger kiddo can't yet get a vaccine.
Superb article. Many thanks for writing and publishing this. Your honesty with the facts and caution with speculation is much appreciated.
Thank you for this fantastic work! On the issue of prediction/response, hoping that technologies like the mRNA vaccine platform and computer simulation can further obviate the need for dangerous research.
The NYT piece is full of new (to me) detail and, uh, insight. Bravississima!
Thank you!
So glad you tackled this tough issue, Zeynep, and am looking forward to the Insight posts.
Thank you! I have tens of thousands of *written* words on this we ended up cutting or summarizing. Some of the topics are fascinating — at least to me — on what we can learn from aviation and other complex systems that have instituted safety cultures.
That last part sounds like a lot of things I want to read!
Fascinating combination of science and politics in an authoritarian regime. I had thought of the Tuskeegee experiment, but there the subjects weren’t given the syphilis — those who had it already had it.
Have you read anything about the vaccine trials for Sinovac? Did those follow recognized protocols?
I have not yet read up on their protocols! Good question.
Excellent balanced reporting. Thank you for carefully laying out the facts.
Thanks for publishing the analysis, Zeynep. Looking forward to reading more on this from you here. If you feel comfortable saying, how did you decide what to say or omit about the conflicts and disingenuousness (or worse) of EcoHealth Alliance?
It will be interesting, to say the least, to compare ZT's analysis point by point to whatever the USA/CIA releases. Thanks for providing a baseline.