Hacker News Reader

> It doesn’t mention for example, that those scientists who immediately changed their views concurrently received millions of dollars in new grants

Would you have preferred that they have their grant applications cancelled after having published a paper?

Let's dig in a little bit to the weasel words here.

========

> Fauci "prompted" authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper

Here's the source email that mentions this nefarious "prompting":

> There has been a lot of speculation, fear mongering, and conspiracies put forward in this space and we thought that bringing some clarity to this discussion might be of interest to Nature [sic]. Prompted by Jeremy Farrah [sic], Tony Fauci, and Francis Collins, Eddie Holmes, Andrew Rambaut, Bob Garry, Ian Lipkin, and myself have been working through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus.

What a smoking gun! Err... I guess not...

=====

> worked with NIH leadership to “put down” the lab-leak hypothesis

This refers to Francis Collins asking Fauci whether there was more that could kill momentum behind the competing theory. It's important to note this momentum was driven primarily by media attention and not growing scientific consensus or any new scientific evidence.

That is entirely consistent with someone who does not want what they see as an incorrect explanation to become the public's consensus view (especially when concerned about the possible ramifications of that consensus forming without sufficient evidence).

This happened after Fauci had "prompted [a team] to work through much of the (primarily) genetic data to provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypothesis around the origins of the virus."

Fauci's response: "I would not do anything about this right now."

====

Again: No one prevented any scientist from publishing their competing theories. They may have had a hard time getting taken seriously, they may have not been accepted to Nature, they may have been called a quack: but that is often what it means to go up against the consensus view.

That is not censorship. That is the imperfect system of science as it always works in every domain.

View on HN

(1) Gain-of-function research.--The term ``gain-of-function research'' means any research that-- (A) involves the genetic alteration of an organism to change or enhance the organism's biological functions, which change or enhancement may include increased infectivity, transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range (which is the spectrum of hosts that an organism can infect); or (B) may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to an organism, such that the organism would have enhanced infectivity, pathogenicity, or transmissibility, or otherwise pose a threat to national security, public safety, or the health of humans, companion animals, or livestock, poultry, seafood and aquaculture species, or game animals.