This article does a really good job, IMO, of addressing the controversy inherent in the title and the implications therein.
But rather than just reading the headline, it’s a really well written article on “Gain of Function” research, and the history of contemporary bioweapons and infectious disease institutions. Particularly the funding, beginning in the 50’s, and exploding during the war on terror. It’s simply fascinating.
The desire to place blame, the political implications (plenty bipartisan), the funding — it’s not very hard to see why this subject provokes such strong reactions. But dismissing it out-of-hand misses the opportunity to delve deep into a field that is as consequential as nuclear weapons research.
Yes, it's a great article. Too bad many commenters won't have read it ;)
The most interesting part to me wasn't actually the lab leak part. That's been widely discussed for some time. The more interesting bit was how the anthrax scare turned out to be a lab worker who had a financial stake in vaccine research and apparently wanted funding to be increased ... and how that scare was used by the USG to justify drastic increases in funding towards bio-defence. If anyone has ever managed to more successfully or more cheaply achieve their goals through terrorism it's hard to think of an example!
But rather than just reading the headline, it’s a really well written article on “Gain of Function” research, and the history of contemporary bioweapons and infectious disease institutions. Particularly the funding, beginning in the 50’s, and exploding during the war on terror. It’s simply fascinating.
The desire to place blame, the political implications (plenty bipartisan), the funding — it’s not very hard to see why this subject provokes such strong reactions. But dismissing it out-of-hand misses the opportunity to delve deep into a field that is as consequential as nuclear weapons research.