I only care about one thing whether that virus came out as the result of aforementioned research. I could not care less about author's worldview and whether he eats babies for breakfast.
>I only care about one thing whether that virus came out as the result of aforementioned research
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.
Then you should read what scientists write, not science journalists
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.
The point is that you seem to be arriving at that yes/no answer as a result of reading the words of someone whose credibility and impartiality is in question.
Well here is surprise for you. I used to be a scientist myself. Just in a totally different area. From my experience being racist and impartiality to results in one's profession are orthogonal.
All the arguments I see so far are of "but, but he cheats on his wife" quality.
This isn't doubting someone's opinion because of a completely unrelated character trait. Taking your examples, if he was cheating on his wife or eating babies (?) that probably wouldn't have any bearing on this. I think the issue people have is that someone with pretty questionable opinions on race has got some other opinions on a hot topic that has been tinged with racist rhetoric from the right. I can totally see why that'd be enough for some to pass on it and say "nah, no thanks".
There is no clear yes/no answer here. Without a smoking gun either way there is a scale of probability/certainty and everyone who looks into this falls somewhere on that scale based on their experience, ideology, biases, research, etc...
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.
Well, no. I was referring to the question posed related to available knowledge and your article. But your statement makes an assumption that it’s origin is a lab, as that would be the only way that somebody would know for sure. If it’s natural in origin then that person does not exist, or if they did would publish their research and claim the glory. So you’re taking a position on the scale of certainty which is dependent upon your own conclusions based on uncertainty.
