The theory of leaks in the Wuhan laboratory

Suddenly, it seems that the theory of the leak in a laboratory in Wuhan is everywhere.

Yesterday, President Joe Biden called on US intelligence officials to “redouble their efforts” to determine the origin of COVID-19 and find out if the virus that causes it has escaped from a Chinese lab. Social networks and major publications have debated the issue.

Today we have a guide to figure it out.

Tell me the basics

The origin of the virus remains uncertain. Many scientists have long believed that the most likely explanation is that it passed from an animal to a person, likely at a food market in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Transmission from animals to humans – known as zoonotic overflow – is an indigenous story common to several viruses, including Ebola and some avian influenza.

But some scientists point to another possibility: who escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As in other laboratories, researchers sometimes modify viruses there to understand and treat them.

“It is probably a natural virus, but we cannot rule out the possibility of some kind of laboratory accidentFrancis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health, told Senators yesterday.

For now?

The subject is gaining more and more attention because some scientists who were once skeptical of the laboratory theory are now open Before the possibility.

Two weeks ago, 18 scientists sent a letter to the scientific journal Science calling for further research and describing both animal-to-human theory and laboratory accident theory as “viable”. Yes Three scientists who rejected the explanation of the lab leak as a conspiracy theory last year The Wall Street Journal which they now consider plausible.

Among the reasons: Chinese authorities have refused to allow independent investigation of the laboratory and they failed to explain some inconsistencies in the animal hypothesis. Most of the first confirmed cases had no obvious connection to the food market.

What changed?

In a way, not much has changed. From the start, the origin of the virus was unclear. All the while there has been some scientists, politicians and journalists who have argued that the theory of laboratory leaks deserves consideration.

Nearly 15 months ago, two Chinese researchers wrote an article concluding that the virus “probably came from a laboratory in Wuhan”. Alina Chan, a molecular biologist affiliated with Harvard and MIT presented similar reasoning. David Ignatius and Josh Rogin, both columnists for the Washington Post, wrote about the possibility over a year ago. Joe Biden, then presidential candidate, did not bring up the theory of the lab leak in early 2020, but argued that the United States “should not believe China” on how the outbreak has begun.

But these voices were in the minority. The World Health Organization initially dismissed the theory of laboratory leaks as implausible.

Why was this theory so belittled?

This seems to be a classic example of group thinking, exacerbated by partisan polarization.

Global health officials appeared unwilling to confront Chinese officials, who insist that the virus has passed from an animal to a person.

In the USA, One of the early proponents of the theory was Tom Cotton, the Republican senator from Arkansas who often criticizes China., and that you have a history of promoting lies (such as election fraud that did not happen). In that case, however, Cotton was making an argument with credible evidence to back it up.

In approaching the problem, the media coverage has been imperfect, as Matthew Yglesias of Substack wrote. Some newspaper articles exaggerated Cotton’s remarks to imply that the senator said China had deliberately released the virus. as a biological weapon (what Cotton said was “highly unlikely”). And some scientists and other people also seem to have decided that if Cotton believes something – and Fox News and Donald Trump repeated it – the idea had to be wrong.

The result, as Yglesias calls it, it was a bubble of false consensus. Scientists who thought the lab’s leak was credible, like Chan, received little attention. Scientists who thought the theory was far-fetched received wide attention. It’s a good reminder: the world is a complicated place where hardly anyone is always right or always wrong.

Because it is important?

The origin of the virus does not affect many aspects of the fight against covid. The best mitigation strategies (travel restrictions, testing, contact tracing, social distancing, ventilation, and use of face masks) remain the best strategies to mitigate the effects of the virus.

But there are at least three specific reasons, in addition to the inherent value of truth, why origin matters.

First, if the virus comes from a lab, revealing the details immediately could have led to even faster vaccine development and more effective treatments. Second, a laboratory leak that has caused millions of deaths could result in a widespread change in laboratory safety precautions. Third, if a lab accident is confirmed, it would affect the world’s perception of China and put pressure on that country to take on the task of vaccinating the planet as soon as possible.

So what is the truth?

We do not know it. Both the animal-to-human transmission and the laboratory accident appear credible. And the lack of clarity from Chinese officials means we may never know the truth.

To know more: The Washington Post posted a helpful timeline. Last week in Way, science journalist Donald G. McNeil Jr. explained why he now thinks the lab accident is plausible. And sociologist Zeynep Tufekci said the issue highlighted some of the problems with the media’s approach to data verification.

the Time You have a report with the latest details of the investigation ordered by Biden.

[Esta nota es un fragmento del boletín diario The Morning, que escribe David Leonhardt].

David Leonhardt writes The Morning, The Times’ main newsletter, which is sent daily. Previously, he was Washington bureau chief, founding editor of The Upshot, opinion columnist and leader of Project 2020 on the Future of the New York Times Newsroom. He won the Pulitzer Prize in the commentary category in 2011. @DLeonhardt

vs. 2021 The New York Times Company

KEEP READING: