Opens profile photo
Follow
Jon Cohen
@sciencecohen
Science magazine staff writer on infectious diseases, outbreaks, immunology, vaccines, global health, genomics, CRISPR, primates, surfing. Views mine.
Cardiff, Californiajoncohen.orgJoined April 2009

Jon Cohen’s Tweets

Love the "motte and bailey rubbish." Had never heard of "motte and bailey." Interesting history to this fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and
Quote Tweet
Replying to @stuartjdneil and @sciencecohen
The usual motte and bailey rubbish. Yes to sensible and rugged oversight of potentially dangerous experiments No to using SC2 origins (which strongly appear natural atm) as a cudgel to get the changes you deem necessary while circumventing a sensible, evidence based discussion
3
6
"Whole-genome genetic distance misleadingly suggests decades of separation between the proximal ancestor...non-recombinant fragments from published sarbecovirus genomes are descended from viruses ancestral to and circulating as recently as 1–3 years prior."
Quote Tweet
The comparative recency of the proximal ancestors of SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 ift.tt/H6mvqTR
9
12
Derek Lowe wrote a thoughtful column about a complicated topic. Not sure why you oversimplify to suggest that I think whatever he thinks. There are civilized ways to discuss difficult issues. I urge you and others to think twice before resorting to snark. It poisons the air.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
Maybe you missed it, but below you can see where Derek Lowe refers to this as [ supposed "gain of function" ] : twitter.com/Dereklowe/stat
9
10
Hooey. I've never stated whether I think this experiment is or isn't GOF, and my opinion doesn't matter. What I've said repeatedly is it's a complicated topic--and I've objected to it being oversimplified and distorted (Daily Mail). And FWIW, I see both sides of the argument.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
You and Derek Lowe irresponsibly downplay the risks of the gain of function research done at @BU_Tweets, going so far as to falsely claiming it is not gain of function research! I'm glad you have thick skin. Interpret everything as you will. I just hope for honest coverage.
6
7
I welcome criticism, but this isn't criticism. It's just toxic spewing that sullies the conversation. Don't flatter yourself to think it wounds me. As my grandmother said (in Yiddish) when kids tried to spoil a gathering, go knock your head against the wall and yell Bravo.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @InWuchang
Shame on @aaas. Shame on @ScienceMagazine. Shame on @sciencecohen. And most of all, shame on @Dereklowe.
5
10
I like the way this parses the issues. Carefully reasoned, historically rooted, no locked upper case.
Quote Tweet
Second, relatedly, this shines light on shortcomings in the current frameworks. Institutions seem to lack the understanding to effectively spot legitimately controversial research; US jurisdiction is limited and unclear; and we now have controversy without a clear resolution...
Show this thread
4
19
The story is not attempting to allay fears--or to stoke them. She's reporting the facts, describing the different perspectives, and not offering an opinion about what should or shouldn't have been done. Advocate away. But don't denigrate journalism that doesn't take sides.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen and @jocelynkaiser
It's a Pollyannish article which tries to allay fears with quotes from virologists who'd love to do such work without regulations. Here is point: the BU researchers did not know in advance what sort of pathogenicity they would create and NIAID is right that it needed P3CO review.
6
6
We're talking past each other. I criticized the Daily Mail coverage for being misleading on a complicated topic, and I noted, by comparison, the terrific story by . If you prefer the Daily Mail coverage, maybe we simply have different journalistic standards.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
I appreciate the response. But you miss the point - if the BU research has merit and involved genetic manipulation of the Spike protein, how can Zoonati argue that this couldn't happen in Wuhan, as they had novel CoVs, introduced S cleavages, and was part of DEFUSE, etc.
4
2
Dodged? I called it misinformation. But if you need it spelled out, I'm not an advocate for or against GOF, nor am I a defender of scientists or scientific institutions. I'm a journalist who covers these issues. And goofy art attacks like this have a certain charm.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
@sciencecohen you completely dodged the point of this graphic. Read what is written in the bubbles!!!
4
3
The bubbles and calling me a "regime journalist"? That's the kind of misinformation tactic that regimes use. But love that photo. I was chimping in Uganda. Good times. So thanks?
Quote Tweet
The biggest dilemma facing gain-of-function advocates and leak deniers today.
Image
4
10
You reduce this to the ridiculous. You ignore my criticism of the Daily Mail hed and my noting how handled the same story and did it responsibly. You're trying to win an argument. I'm trying understand what's true and not mislead readers. Different agendas.
1
5
Show this thread
Facts: I wrote: "Arguments about P3CO review and BSL levels are complicated." "I'm not weighing in about the complex riks/benefit analysis." "P3CO and BSL arguments over similar experiments have divided scientists for a decade. Leading minds on both sides see complexity."
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
LOL -- I told you it should have gone thru P3CO and you said "it's complicated" -- @NIAIDFunding just agreed with me it should have gone thru review. Where's your story?
2
Show this thread
Informative, carefully written story about a complicated topic. For everyone praising the Daily Mail, compare and contrast.
Quote Tweet
Scientists at Boston University have posted a preprint of work they've done on a chimeric SARS-2 virus. NIAID, which provided some of the grant money, has questions about why it wasn't informed about work that might be viewed as gain of function science. statnews.com/2022/10/17/bos
12
26
I put "failed" in quotes for a reason. The nuance is in the article--that's why the links are there. And I'm glad to see that the use of links is still stoking discussion more than a year later.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Rebecca21951651 and @sciencecohen
Sure, my article misses some nuance... "But I'm glad to see the story is stoking discussion. That's the point." twitter.com/sciencecohen/s
1
It's not simply click baity and slicked up. It's misleading. It's bad journalism. And you were chiding Science? P3CO and BSL arguments over similar experiments have divided scientists for a decade. Leading minds on both sides see complexity. If you don't, you don't.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
I was applauding Daily Mail for covering issue & highlighting it. I agree it is click-baity & slicked-up but a leak of this chimeric virus would be bad. In what ways are the arguments about P3CO & BSL level complicated w/r/t this kind of research in a big city in the US?
4
4
Problem here is spin: "Boston University CREATES a new Covid strain that has an 80% kill rate — echoing dangerous experiments feared to have started pandemic" As Stuart notes, ancestral strain, Wuhan-1, killed 100% of the mice. Human relevance? twitter.com/stuartjdneil/s
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen and @stuartjdneil
Thanks -- The problem here is: 1. No P3CO review 2. Done in BSL-3 vs. 4 (Which BU can handle) 3. They did not know in advance what pathogenicity they would create so Stuart's long stream is not all that relevant.
11
8
Here's a critical assessment of just this sort of misinterpretation of the findings from . twitter.com/stuartjdneil/s So yes, the Daily Mail beat Science.
Quote Tweet
@DailyMailUK beat @ScienceMagazine again: dailymail.co.uk/health/article @sciencecohen @hholdenthorp @R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan @emilyakopp @WashburneAlex @mbalter
13
7
I responded to this Tweet yesterday, and my stream today is filled with the original without my reply. Would be a great Twitter upgrade if it could recognize and include replies. One can dream. As is, it's a sermon on a loop, not a conversation.
Quote Tweet
I wrote about it last year and linked to in the current story. science.org/content/articl
3
Bravo! Well deserved.
Quote Tweet
I’m super excited to announce that I’ve been selected as a winner of the Awards for Excellence in Science Communication, given by @theNASEM in partnership with @SchmidtFutures. #SciCommFutures nationalacademies.org/awards/excelle
Show this thread
Image
1
4
Quote Tweet
Baffled. @sciencecohen, can u pls tell us how u decided that @ScienceMagazine readers must learn about the report of a task force disbanded bc of undisclosed COIs & not telling the truth, but not about #JSachs's experience w this task force and assessment of its trustworthiness? twitter.com/pathogenetics/…
Image
3
It was anonymous and your speculations are wide of the mark. You make things up, and when I correct inaccuracies, you just keep on shoveling, tossing the dirt at me about ethics and propriety. Amusing, baffling, telling. But have at it.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
That's not proven - sometimes online messaging systems can add message identifiers in front of the names of people who sent letters. Why was the text immediately after "ofu7ledu8z" redacted?
10
26
Your facts are fiction. The e-mail, as can be seen, is sent from ofu8Iedu8z. I don't know anyone by that name.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @WashburneAlex and @sciencecohen
From the redacted email, it's also not clear whether or not you anonymized the email. If redacted tho, then it's probably not anonymized. By forwarding the contents of the email to the subjects of the complaint, you risked retribution against the person who lodged a complaint.
3
11
Where did I call it an "ethics complaint"? I've clarified this several times. It involved the now infamous meeting with Fauci, Collins and Farrar that have received extensive attention. I shared the complaint with them because it was about them and I wanted their input.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
You said it was an ethics complaint though. Can you clarify? Which meeting? Who was present? And why was this forwarded to Andersen/Holmes?
2
3
I'm not an editor. It wasn't what I would describe as "a whistleblower complaint"...it was someone who wasn't at a meeting about how someone else at the meeting didn't receive proper credit for having influenced thinking (away from bioengineering) about the proximal origin.
Quote Tweet
Written by the same editor of @ScienceMagazine who received a whistleblower complaint about Proximal Origin and then forwarded the complaint to the authors, noting "This is what people are saying behind your backs..." Clearly a trustworthy, independent, objective opinion 🙄 twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/st…
12
13
Read the story. There's a link to an earlier story that goes into great detail about the battle between Sachs and the task force. No need to repeat it in the current story.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @sciencecohen
No, context would be saying why Sachs gave the task force the boot, like not disclosing significant COI especially regarding collaboration with WIV and EHA.
4
1
No offense taken. I'm not pushing a POV: I'm reporting on credible, different POVs. The story explains how the booted task force weighed the evidence, strongly favoring zoonosis, and recounts why Sachs gave the task force the boot. That's context, not equivalency.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @PhilippMarkolin
Great analysis Dr. Markolin. I also hope @sciencecohen doesn't take offense. Our report shows that for origins literature, the weight of evidence is so heavy on the 'natural' side that equivalence between these two theories is at this point false. pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.10
28
23
This has nothing to do with my skin. I have fond memories of a younger you, and I dislike bullshit. When you make things up, I sometimes, despite my better judgment, reply. Take your fantasies about this "tight knit club." You're also what my mother calls a nudnik. Over and out.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @mbalter @Muller_Lab and 6 others
Btw political reporters are used to having their work critiqued, sometimes sharply, but science journalists belong to a tight knit club (I was part of it for decades) and often tend to have thin skins when challenged. We have seen that in my exchanges with @sciencecohen eg.
11
10
Here's to bookstores. Long may they wave.
Quote Tweet
The Biggest, Most Chaotic Used Bookstore in the Southern Hemisphere ozy.com/around-the-wor via @ozy
4
4
Stop making up facts. I repeat: I did not send this e-mail to Fauci. I sent it to the subjects of the complaint for comment. To sate your curiosity, I sometimes use flippant language to add levity to serious matters. Now show that you know the meaning of -30-
Quote Tweet
Replying to @mbalter @sciencecohen and 3 others
Note to readers: I am far from the only person who has raised questions about this email from Cohen tipping off Fauci and others about the email he received, so that makes for a lot of weird people I suppose.
3
9
I'm on Team Flo.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @flodebarre @Ayjchan and 2 others
Alina, do you really think that if this anonymous tipster had 💣info about the telecon like you are suggesting, they would only have contacted Jon Cohen? I can think of a few other outlets that would have been quite keen to expose a conspiracy orchestrated by Fauci.
6
15