This piece by Dan Rather is a good example of the motivated reasoning that has poisoned the discussion over covid origins, and ironically a very unscientific approach. Whether science is under attack or not should have zero bearing on investigating how the pandemic started.https://twitter.com/DanRather/status/1406611921256828930 …
-
Show this thread
-
If the pandemic was iatrogenic, then Stewart is in fact completely correct that certain avenues of scientific research pose a major threat to humanity. And scientists are not neutral arbiters in that discussion, but have an enormous interest in the exculpatory answer being right.
2 replies 4 retweets 37 likesShow this thread -
The answer to the covid origins question will help us decide whether we should be building new coronavirus research labs or tearing them down. Whether this answer helps the opponents of science, or helps Trump, or upsets China, or destroys public confidence is irrelevant.
3 replies 5 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Pinboard
Or how about maybe just not building them in the middle of cities the size of NYC? Someone told me there’s an actual international accord about not bombing Atlanta to avoid reinfecting the world with smallpox; I don’t know if it’s true but: highlights how stupid the siting is.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @tqbf
A friend in government was telling me just the other day about a hoof-and-mouth disease research program that was moved from an island off of NYC (good!) to the middle of Kansas (not good!) for purely political/bureaucratic reasons. I hope siting becomes part of the discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
If only so that when there’s a novel coronavirus outbreak near the (hypothetical) novel coronavirus labs at Casper, WY we don’t so much have to wonder where it came from.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.