
NIH’s axing of bat coronavirus grant a ‘horrible precedent’ - HarryHirsch
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/nih-s-axing-bat-coronavirus-grant-horrible-precedent-and-might-break-rules-critics-say
======
gregwebs
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...](https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-
millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741)

2: The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus 10.13140/RG.2.2.21799.29601
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.resea...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200214144447/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339070128_The_possible_origins_of_2019-nCoV_coronavirus)

------
BearOso
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.

~~~
gumby
> 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](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.

~~~
cameldrv
What is the argument in that paper?

~~~
runawaybottle
Perhaps this bit:

 _While the analyses above suggest that SARS-CoV-2 may bind human ACE2 with
high affinity, computational analyses predict that the interaction is not
ideal7 and that the RBD sequence is different from those shown in SARS-CoV to
be optimal for receptor binding7,11. Thus, the high-affinity binding of the
SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 is most likely the result of natural
selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding
solution to arise. This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product
of purposeful manipulation._

But again, the poster clarified this only addresses the engineering of the
virus, not the the other theories that center around lax precautions at the
lab.

So, these threads do devolve into a predictable pattern, but I’m compelled to
bring up instances where viruses escaped from Chinese labs before:

[https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/sars-escaped-
bei...](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-analysis/sars-escaped-beijing-lab-
twice-50137/amp)

I believe there were a few more instances too (not mentioned in the article).

~~~
pacala
Humans have engaged in genetic manipulation through application of selective
pressures since the dawn of time. In its positive form is called
'domestication', and 99% of the food of your table, vegetable or animal, is
the byproduct of such genetic manipulation.

Nothing in the article you cite addresses whether SARS-CoV-2 is a result of
applying selective pressures or not. And the grant in question is funding
exactly that: scientists looking to enhance the ability of coronavirus to
infect various species, including humans. Not hard to presume they used the
tried and true method of applying selective pressures, at least as a baseline.

[https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-
wuhan...](https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-
millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741)

------
quadrangle
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?

~~~
hirundo
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.

~~~
gumby
> 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.

~~~
daver00
State Department cables warned of safety issues at Wuhan lab studying bat
coronaviruses

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-
dep...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-
cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/)

~~~
gumby
Thanks, that’s useful.

The WaPo should have done a lot better, specifically by asking the Galveston
people what they thought: had anything gotten better in the last two years? Or
worse?

The cable said they were asking for assistance and in two yearsthey might well
have received it — or not.

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

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

------
pacala
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?

~~~
Barrin92
> 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.

~~~
gregwebs
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.

~~~
DarthGhandi
> but I don't think it was expected to occur a block away

Have you actually looked on a map or simply repeating what tabloids say? They
aren't close at all it's nearly an hour's walk away.

It's entirely conspiratorial, it's the textbook definition of conspiracy,
where's the evidence apart from heresay and feelings?

Personally think that the US needs something to deflect from its disastrous
handling of the pandemic.

Plenty of scientists have looked into it, along with investigative reporters,
feel free to read:

[https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/8417296...](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/04/23/841729646/virus-
researchers-cast-doubt-on-theory-of-coronavirus-lab-accident)

[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3079391/bat-...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3079391/bat-
virus-bioweapon-what-science-says-about-covid-19-origins)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/bat-soup-
dodgy...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/bat-soup-dodgy-cures-
and-diseasology-the-spread-of-coronavirus-bunkum)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/01/29/experts-
debu...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/01/29/experts-debunk-
fringe-theory-linking-chinas-coronavirus-weapons-research/)

> Immunologist Vincent Racaniello stated that virus leaking theory "reflect a
> lack of understanding of the genetic make-up of Sars-CoV-2 and its
> relationship to the bat virus". He states that the bat virus researched in
> the institution "would not have been able to infect humans – the human Sars-
> CoV-2 has additional changes that allows it to infect humans."

~~~
gregwebs
It doesn't seem you have read my comments or the paper I cited which has a
map. There are 2 labs. The one everyone is accusing is 10km away. The lab that
is most likely to have caused the outbreak is a block away.

