Destroying thousands of years worth of culture is not fair game, no matter who does it and no matter the legal authority. Don't fall for it, lest you become a traitor.
"(At this point most scientists say it's possible—but not likely—that the pandemic virus was engineered or manipulated.)"
It seems as if they're confusing the 'possibility' of the manipulation theory with the 'possibility' of the lab escape theory (which is technically possible, but very, very unlikely).
Of course the theoretical possiblity cannot be excluded. I think you're right, this can be the cause for confusion. It can also be used to promote certain agendas and spin. It even gives a certain degree of credibility, as there will be scientist that cam be quoted verbatim. I think this article falls in the agenda category, and not the confusion onr.
Controversial for what? The lab should be backed, and has been backed, and was funded by many governments around the world. Funding should be tripled so we can find these viruses before they become pandemics (the reason for their research).
The controversy is explicitly described in the article:
>The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus. This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn't been deliberately infected contracted the disease.
>The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.
When you set these concerns next to 2018 diplomatic cables describing safety problems at the biolab in question [0], perhaps the accidental-release theory does seem worthy of investigation.
I wish we could read the diplomatic cables, but we can't, and all we have is a conservative opinion columnist's characterization of the cables. The columnist, Josh Rogin, has refused to publish the cables.
But I strongly suspect that Rogin is mischaracterizing the cables. He claims that they express alarm over a lack of trained staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Staff from the WIV are trained at a US national lab in Galveston. I think it's highly likely that the directors of the WIV told US diplomats that that support was important, and asked for it to be increased. US diplomats then wrote that the lab needed more trained staff, and that the US should increase support. Someone in the Trump administration then found this cable and "leaked" it to a friendly commentator, Rogin. Rogin then characterized it as pointing out severe problems in the lab, without letting anyone see what the cable actually says.
I'd bet the reason Rogin won't publish the cable is that on the whole, it probably doesn't support the characterization he's trying to make.
Did you read the full article? They give a detailed explanation of why the project is controversial.
You might agree, you might disagree, you might want to sit on either side of the controversy, but the article substantiates quite well the usage of the adjective "controversial" in the title.
Yes, and I don't see how they're linking the lab to GoF. The GoF component of the research has been cancelled, and I would presume (due to its association with Peter Daszak) that it was cancelled due to lack of funding from American budget cuts or from safety concerns about the virus. I could be wrong on the reasons for cancellation, though.
>Many scientists have criticized gain of function research, which involves manipulating viruses in the lab to explore their potential for infecting humans, because it creates a risk of starting a pandemic from accidental release.
>More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.
