Sorry, I don’t read articles written by racists.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2834627
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/on-the-...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2834627
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/on-the-...
William Shockley, co-inventor of the transistor. See section “Views on Race and Eugenics”.
My problem with this isn’t that a racist position exists. It’s that racism thrives and grows when you don’t point it out in a manner which leaves a stain on the racist. Those who are secretly racist will be emboldened by a publicly accept racist and it will give them some path to expressing or acting on their racist views which they have otherwise suppressed.
So should we read the article? Maybe. But should we share it while saying “hey look what this known racist is saying”? I don’t think so.
Then you should read what scientists write, not science journalists. If you can't actually understand the science, which is perfectly reasonable given that most of us are laymen, you can read scientific journalists, but then you need to acknowledge that you operate on trust, which would mean you need to take the authors biases into account, and don't pretend you 'only care about the science'.
Wade has been widely criticized on mistakes in scientific accuracy have been pointed out concerning his last books on genetics and race, and he appeared to have some sort of ideological axe to grind. The same may very well be the case here.
It's trivial to misrepresent science in subtle ways to tilt a discussion one way or the other on controversial issues such as this, so author credibility matters.
You can read both. In this case science journalists are both explaining the science (quite well, in this case) and also alledging bad behaviour by scientists, and if he's right (which again, seems to be the case given the evidence presented) then only reading what those very same scientists have written would leave you less well informed.
It is disingenuous to claim to care about Science while willfully ignoring the biases inherent in the narrative of presentation.
I don't. The question was did the virus come out as the result of that research or not. The answer is simple yes or no. No need to dance around.
All the arguments I see so far are of "but, but he cheats on his wife" quality.
I understand. This is their choice. We do not have to agree.
Personally I think lab origin is unlikely as whilst it's possible to describe how it could happen, that's not proof it did actually happen. Too often people mistake theoretical actions for proof of action. The probability of natural origin still ranks higher for me but I wouldn't bet my house on it.
There is. We just do not know it. But somebody does.
And at any rate, the attempted smearing of anyone who points to problems in establishment thinking as a racist is trivial, completely expected of a certain segment of society and of no importance relative to the topic at hand. Wade's article not only builds an extremely strong case for the "engineered in a lab" theory, but just as importantly, shows that virology as field needs to be shut down. Virologists have been caught engaging in two conspiracies around this topic now - the conspiracy of silence by Chinese state and researchers, and the second was the deception around the letters claiming a lab leak was an absurd conspiracy theory and which boldly claimed there were no conflicts of interest even though they had the biggest conflicts imaginable. That's before we even get to the stupidity of GOF research.
It's a small field with a bad culture, and as the article points out, has in the end contributed nothing to actually fighting COVID. The case for defunding it looks strong and the case for continuing it looks weak.
Those things are all far more important than your allergic reaction to a man who worked for decades at the NYT of all places
I'm not sure you read past the first sentence of that article, since the second sentence makes it clear that Nicholas Wade is the one making the claim he's not racist. "It's not prejudice; it's science." It's pretty clear the reviewer -- in Scientific American, which I believe does have some bona fides -- is laying out the case that, in fact, it's prejudice, not science, and lays it out in a pretty convincing manner. The book being reviewed, as I understand it, has been pretty widely criticized not only by reviewers, but by scientists arguing that Wade misrepresented their research.
Does that have any bearing on Wade's case for SARS-CoV-2 being a lab-created virus? Certainly not directly; maybe not at all. I read the whole article, and it certainly makes a plausible and compelling case! But like it or not, a lot of the conversation around "the lab creation theory" for SARS-CoV-2 has had a decidedly racial tinge. Having it turn out that this plausible and compelling case has been made by a science writer who had a recent, major work widely criticized for, ah, a decidedly racial tinge is, well... let's say "interesting."
As a final note, gain-of-function research certainly sounds fraught with peril even under the best of circumstances, and these do not sound like they were the best of circumstances. I question whether that means "virology as a field needs to be shut down."
The explicit statement that Nicholas Wade is not a racist appears both as the first sentence - unquoted i.e. this is not reported speech but a statement by the article author - and in the abstract at the top, also not in quotes. But then it starts by mis-representing his argument by saying he "explains why white people are better because of their genes" and in the very next sentence admits that "to be fair" that's not actually what he said at all.
We are left deliberately confused about both what the author of the article and the author of the book actually think. For example you wrote:
Nicholas Wade is the one making the claim he's not racist. "It's not prejudice; it's science."
and you put that statement in quotes to imply that Wade is the one who said it, but in fact, it's the article author who wrote that statement, not Wade!
I don't fully understand where you see a racial tinge in the lab creation theory. The lab is in China but beyond that it has nothing to do with being Chinese. And as Wade and others document, the money came from US research agencies and GOF research is done in multiple countries, so again, I don't see any racial connection. If Wade was actually a racist I guess he'd not miss this golden opportunity to blame the apparently lax Chinese lab practices on their DNA, but he makes no such argument anywhere, not even about culture.
No, I put it in quotes to indicate that it was a quote. And yes, allturtles is correct that the author was engaging in a rhetorical device here, and is clearly (at least, it's clear to me) asserting that, yes, Wade's thesis was essentially racist. I don't think we're going to get anywhere continuing this, though, so let's just agree to disagree.