Wikipedia

Lancet letter (COVID-19)

The Lancet letter (also referred to as Calisher et al. 2020) was a statement made in support of scientists and medical professionals in China fighting the outbreak of COVID-19, and condemning theories suggesting that the virus does not have a natural origin, which it referred to as "conspiracy theories".[1][2] The letter was published in The Lancet on February 19, 2020, and signed by 27 prominent scientists, gaining a further 20,000 signatures in a Change.org petition.[3][4] The letter generated significant controversy over the alleged conflicts of interest of its authors, and the chilling effect it had on scientists proposing that the COVID-19 lab leak theory be investigated.[5][6][7]

Background edit

From the early outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, rumors and speculation arose about the possible lab origins of SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of the COVID-19 disease. Different versions of the lab origin hypothesis present different scenarios in which a bat-borne progenitor of SARS-COV-2 may have spilled over to humans, including a laboratory-acquired infection of a natural or engineered virus. Some early rumors focused on the deliberate leak of a virus as a bioweapon or accidental leak of an engineered virus. Some signatories of the Lancet letter, such as Stanley Perlman and Linda Saif, said they were focused on dispelling these rumours, though the letter did not make this distinguishment, as Daszak insisted on a "broad statement".[8]

Reception edit

Critical commentary edit

According to journalist Paul Thacker, the Lancet letter "helped to guide almost a year of reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak's message and to silence scientific and public debate." This affected reporting on the origins of the virus, "characterising the lab leak theory as unworthy of serious consideration".[9]

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, social scientist Filippa Lentzos said that the letter's conclusion was premature, saying that some scientists "closed ranks", fearing for their careers and grants.[9]

The letter was criticized by media commentator Jamie Metzl for "scientific propaganda and thuggery".[10] Metzel wrote to Lancet editor Richard Horton to flag Daszak's conflict of interest, but received no response.[11] Horton later responded in a UK parliament session.[12] Horton said to the committee "We trust authors to be honest with us and authors trust us to deal with their work confidentially and appropriately. Sometimes that system breaks down, and in this particular case Peter Daszak should certainly have declared his competing interests right at the beginning."[13]

Journalist Katherine Eban wrote in Vanity Fair that the letter had a "chilling effect" on scientific research and the scientific community by implying that scientists who "bring up the lab-leak theory ... are doing the work of conspiracy theorists". The letter was deemed to have "effectively ended the debate over COVID-19's origins before it began". Further criticism of the letter was focused on the fact that, according to emails obtained through FOIA, members involved in producing the letter concealed their involvement "to create the impression of scientific unanimity" and failed to disclose conflicts.[5]

Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, wrote in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that "Contrary to the letter writers' assertion, the idea that the virus might have escaped from a lab invoked accident, not conspiracy." Wade opined that the signatories of the Lancet letter behaved as "poor scientists" for "assuring the public of facts they could not know for sure were true."[14]

Rutgers professor Richard Ebright noted that the conflicts of interest involving virologists denying that the pandemic could have come from a laboratory in Wuhan were "simply unprecedented."[15]

According to Politico, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs David Stilwell was shocked by the letter and its complete dismissal the lab leak possibility, saying that it was apparent that "the science world was not playing above board."[16]

In November 2020, David Relman published an opinion piece in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, pointing out that "origin story" of the virus was still missing key details and that an objective analysis necessitated "addressing some uncomfortable possibilities," including an accidental release from a laboratory.[17][18] When asked by UnDark why he thought Daszak and others pushed so strongly against the possibility of a lab leak, Relman said they may have wanted to "deflect perceptions of their work as endangering humankind".[8]

Signatories' statements edit

According to The Wall Street Journal, three signatories' said that upon further reflection, they thought a laboratory accident was plausible enough to merit consideration. Bernard Roizman is reported to have said "I'm convinced that what happened is that the virus was brought to a lab, they started to work with it…and some sloppy individual brought it out".[19]

In June 2021, ABC News reported Calisher had "completely changed his position", saying he believes that "there is too much coincidence" to ignore the lab-leak theory and that "it is more likely that it came out of that lab."[20]

In an email to Undark Magazine, Stanley Perlman wrote that versions of the lab leak idea differed in whether they posited the virus was engineered in a lab before leaking, explaining that the Lancet letter focused more on engineering.[21]

In an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung in February 2022, Christian Drosten said that had the experiments being done at the laboratory in Wuhan been disclosed by those involved, he would have "at least asked questions" before signing the letter.[22]

Lancet response edit

Addendum edit

Following criticisms from the public that Daszak had failed to disclose certain relationships, The Lancet published an addendum, saying "There may be differences in opinion as to what constitutes a competing interest." It also invited Daszak and other authors of the letter to amend their competing interest statements. Daszak amended his statement to describe the research he has done in southeast Asia, with various different institutions including the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Daszak also recused himself from The Lancet's COVID-19 origins inquiry.[23][24][25][15]

Second letter edit

Following the addendum to the first letter, the authors of the first letter published a second letter, reaffirming their view that the pandemic has natural origins. The letter asserted that "careful and transparent collection of scientific information" on every potential hypothesis,[citation needed] but that they believe it unlikely that the virus leaked from a lab. William B. Karesh, Peter Palese, and Bernard Roizman, who signed the first letter, did not sign the second letter.[26][27]

Stanley Perlman, who signed both letters, said the original letter addressed the lab leak bioengineering scenario only and that the second letter addresses the scenario where a natural virus was accidentally released.[28]

Counterstatements edit

Science Magazine edit

In May 2021, a group of 18 prominent scientists published a letter in Science Magazine saying "We must take hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers seriously until we have sufficient data" and that "theories of accidental release from a lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable."[8][29][30][31][32][33] The letter also criticized the WHO report on covid origins for dismissing the lab-leak theory.[34]

The Lancet edit

In September 2021, The Lancet published a letter from a group of 16 virologists, biologists, and biosecurity specialists saying that more evidence is needed before any definitive conclusions on the origins question and calling for further investigations into a lab leak. The letter stressed that "Research-related hypotheses are not misinformation or conjecture" and that "Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses."[35][36][37] The Times of India described The Lancet's decision to publish the letter as a "u-turn".[38]

National Academy of Sciences edit

The US National Academy of Sciences said that the search should be "guided by scientific principles" that would consider multiple scenarios for the origin of the pandemic.[39]

In an interview with The Washington Post, Marcia McNutt said scientists open to the possibility of a laboratory accident should not be labeled conspiracy theorists.[40]

See also edit

References edit

  1. ^ Calisher, Charles; Carroll, Dennis; Colwell, Rita; Corley, Ronald B.; Daszak, Peter; et al. (March 7, 2020). "Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19". The Lancet. 395 (10226): e42–e43. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9. PMC 7159294. PMID 32087122.
  2. ^ Rozado, David (24 August 2021). "Prevalence in News Media of Two Competing Hypotheses about COVID-19 Origins". Social Sciences. 10 (9). 320. doi:10.3390/socsci10090320.
  3. ^ "Experts fear false rumours could harm Chinese cooperation on coronavirus". The Guardian. February 20, 2020.
  4. ^ Prasad, R. (February 20, 2020). "Opinion | A preprint provides ammunition to conspiracy theories about SARS-CoV-2 origin". The Hindu.
  5. ^ a b Eban, Katherine (June 3, 2021). "The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19's Origins". Vanity Fair.
  6. ^ Spence, Madeleine. "The rise and fall of British virus hunter Peter Daszak". The Times.
  7. ^ "Covid origins: Scientists weigh up evidence over virus's origins". BBC News. July 9, 2021.
  8. ^ a b c "Lab Leak: A Scientific Debate Mired in Politics — and Unresolved". Undark Magazine. March 17, 2021.
  9. ^ a b Thacker, Paul D. (July 8, 2021). "The COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a misinformation campaign?". BMJ. 374: n1656. doi:10.1136/bmj.n1656. PMID 34244293. S2CID 235760734.
  10. ^ Lonas, Lexi (June 9, 2021). "WHO adviser accuses COVID-19 lab-leak theory critics of 'thuggery'". The Hill.
  11. ^ Hvistendahl, Mara (June 19, 2021). "I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over COVID-19's Origins".
  12. ^ Knapton, Sarah (15 December 2021). "Wuhan lab leak 'now the most likely origin of Covid', MPS told". The Telegraph.
  13. ^ "Science and Technology Committee : Oral evidence: Reproducibility and Research Integrity, HC 606" (PDF). Committees.parliament.uk. Retrieved February 4, 2022.
  14. ^ "The origin of COVID: Did people or nature open Pandora's box at Wuhan?". Thebulletin.org. May 5, 2021.
  15. ^ a b Thacker, Paul D. (October 1, 2021). "COVID-19: Lancet investigation into origin of pandemic shuts down over bias risk". BMJ. 375: n2414. doi:10.1136/bmj.n2414. PMID 34598923. S2CID 238241044.
  16. ^ "Top Trump officials pushed the COVID-19 lab-leak theory. Investigators had doubts". Politico.com. 15 June 2021.
  17. ^ Relman, David A. (November 24, 2020). "Opinion: To stop the next pandemic, we need to unravel the origins of COVID-19". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 117 (47): 29246–29248. doi:10.1073/pnas.2021133117. PMC 7703598. PMID 33144498.
  18. ^ "Stanford scientist calls for investigation of Wuhan lab leak". Taiwan News. December 3, 2020.
  19. ^ Jeremy Page; Betsy McKay; Drew Hinshaw (May 24, 2021). "The Wuhan Lab Leak Question: A Disused Chinese Mine Takes Center Stage". The Wall Street Journal.
  20. ^ "Nature-based or lab leak? Unraveling the debate over the origins of COVID-19". ABC News.
  21. ^ "Did the coronavirus leak from a lab? These scientists say we shouldn't rule it out". MIT Technology Review.
  22. ^ "Christian Drosten im Interview – "Warum hat er mich nicht einfach mal angerufen?"". 9 February 2022.
  23. ^ Editors of The Lancet (June 26, 2021). "Addendum: competing interests and the origins of SARS-CoV-2". The Lancet. 397 (10293): 2449–2450. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01377-5. PMC 8215723. S2CID 235494625.
  24. ^ Gulland, Anne (June 22, 2021). "UK scientist with links to Wuhan lab 'recuses himself' from inquiry into Covid origins". The Telegraph.
  25. ^ "Under-fire Lancet admits conflict of interest on lab-leak letter". Times Higher Education (THE). June 22, 2021.
  26. ^ Calisher, Charles H.; Carroll, Dennis; Colwell, Rita; Corley, Ronald B.; et al. (July 17, 2021). "Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans". The Lancet. 398 (10296): 209–211. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01419-7. PMC 8257054. PMID 34237296.
  27. ^ Newey, Sarah (July 6, 2021). "Strongest evidence yet suggests natural origins for Covid, say scientists". The Telegraph.
  28. ^ "Nobody knows how to engineer a virus from scratch". The Week.
  29. ^ Bloom, Jesse D.; Chan, Yujia Alina; Baric, Ralph S.; Bjorkman, Pamela J.; et al. (2021). "Investigate the origins of COVID-19". Science. 372 (6543): 694. Bibcode:2021Sci...372..694B. doi:10.1126/science.abj0016. PMC 9520851. PMID 33986172. S2CID 234487267.
  30. ^ Swanson, Ian (July 6, 2021). "Group of scientists argues COVID-19 lab theory without evidence". The Hill.
  31. ^ Gorman, James; Zimmer, Carl (May 13, 2021). "Another Group of Scientists Calls for Further Inquiry Into Origins of the Coronavirus". The New York Times.
  32. ^ Guy Faulconbridge (May 13, 2021). "COVID-19 lab leak theory cannot be ruled out, leading scientists say". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2021-11-25. Retrieved 2021-11-03.
  33. ^ Steer, George; Cookson, Clive (May 14, 2021). "Scientists demand fresh investigation into coronavirus lab-leak theory". Financial Times.
  34. ^ "The Sudden Rise of the Coronavirus Lab-Leak Theory". The New Yorker. May 27, 2021.
  35. ^ Helden, Jacques van; Butler, Colin D.; Achaz, Guillaume; Canard, Bruno; et al. (October 16, 2021). "An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2". The Lancet. 398 (10309): 1402–1404. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02019-5. PMC 8448488. PMID 34543608.
  36. ^ "Jury still out on lab-leak COVID-19 origins, researchers say in Lancet letter". South China Morning Post. September 18, 2021. The Lancet had previously only published letters supporting the natural origin theory, the possibility that the virus emerged in the wild and spilled over to humans, probably via the wildlife trade.
  37. ^ Basu, Mohana (September 20, 2021). "Scientists in Lancet letter call for 'evidence-based' evaluation of Covid lab leak theory".
  38. ^ "COVID-19 origins: The Lancet's U-turn, Biden's take and the China link". The Times of India.
  39. ^ "Let Scientific Evidence Determine Origin of SARS-CoV-2, Urge Presidents of the National Academies". Nationalacademies.org. Retrieved February 4, 2022.
  40. ^ "Scientists battle over the ultimate origin story: Where did the coronavirus come from?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 22, 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lancet_letter_(COVID-19)&oldid=1205100996"