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.
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.
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.