In my field, chasing novelty or that thing that is unexpected but might or might not actually be true is a needed skill. My postdoc advisor (Marc Kirschner of Harvard Med) called it 'trust but verify' after the old advice about dealing with the USSR. You'll see a new connection or unexpected finding and you have to find the Goldilock spot where you are open to whether or not this might be a new thing (if you close your mind, you'll miss following the connection) yet a key skill is to figure out what the killer experiment is to support or disprove that new idea/hypothesis about what you're seeing or what it means.
It is fundamental to developing good science. I wouldn't necessarily congratulate those in science who go after novelty blindly though--my spouse's favorite saying with experimental pitches he hears is "if that made any sense, it would be a powerful idea" :) And, we can see where the latest is at, but I still think the verdict about COVID as Wuhan market versus some lab leak is at the least out, the administration's tilting of that discussion notwithstanding and without having examined the evidence for or against myself (or known if we are getting or being given accurate information). One must stay especially wary of whose information we are considering, if they are acting in good faith, and how they are backing up their assertions with provable facts.
Yes, in consumer psych too it's a very tricky needle to thread -- enough supporting evidence from related theory and evidence to make a compelling prediction, but not so much that there's no need for further investigation.
Interesting point about the Covid origin story. I was thinking of the NY Times reporting and should have attributed the about face to them rather than to scientists. Do you have a good source you'd recommend for people who want to understand the origin question in an impartial, scientific manner?
That's the sweet spot on chasing a new gene mutation-disease association in human subjects as well, which we do regularly in our work--I guess it applies to most things!
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 has evoked heated debate and strong accusations, yet seemingly little resolution. I review the scientific evidence on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and its subsequent spread through the human population. The available data clearly point to a natural zoonotic emergence within, or closely linked to, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. There is no direct evidence linking the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 to laboratory work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The subsequent global spread of SARS-CoV-2 was characterized by a gradual adaptation to humans, with dual increases in transmissibility and virulence until the emergence of the Omicron variant. Of note has been the frequent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to other animals, marking it as a strongly host generalist virus. Unless lessons from the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are learned, it is inevitable that more zoonotic events leading to more epidemics and pandemics will plague human populations.
Very technical parts about the genomics, evolution, etc but their overall conclusion:
Conclusions
As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure. The contact tracing of SARS-CoV-2 to markets in Wuhan exhibits striking similarities to the early spread of SARS-CoV to markets in Guangdong, where humans infected early in the epidemic lived near or worked in animal markets. Zoonotic spillover by definition selects for viruses able to infect humans. Although strong safeguards should be consistently employed to minimize the likelihood of laboratory accidents in virological research, those laboratory escapes documented to date have almost exclusively involved viruses brought into laboratories specifically because of their known human infectivity.
There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established (Pekar et al., 2021).
We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. Failure to comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies would leave the world vulnerable to future pandemics arising from the same human activities that have repeatedly put us on a collision course with novel viruses.
In my field, chasing novelty or that thing that is unexpected but might or might not actually be true is a needed skill. My postdoc advisor (Marc Kirschner of Harvard Med) called it 'trust but verify' after the old advice about dealing with the USSR. You'll see a new connection or unexpected finding and you have to find the Goldilock spot where you are open to whether or not this might be a new thing (if you close your mind, you'll miss following the connection) yet a key skill is to figure out what the killer experiment is to support or disprove that new idea/hypothesis about what you're seeing or what it means.
It is fundamental to developing good science. I wouldn't necessarily congratulate those in science who go after novelty blindly though--my spouse's favorite saying with experimental pitches he hears is "if that made any sense, it would be a powerful idea" :) And, we can see where the latest is at, but I still think the verdict about COVID as Wuhan market versus some lab leak is at the least out, the administration's tilting of that discussion notwithstanding and without having examined the evidence for or against myself (or known if we are getting or being given accurate information). One must stay especially wary of whose information we are considering, if they are acting in good faith, and how they are backing up their assertions with provable facts.
Yes, in consumer psych too it's a very tricky needle to thread -- enough supporting evidence from related theory and evidence to make a compelling prediction, but not so much that there's no need for further investigation.
Interesting point about the Covid origin story. I was thinking of the NY Times reporting and should have attributed the about face to them rather than to scientists. Do you have a good source you'd recommend for people who want to understand the origin question in an impartial, scientific manner?
That's the sweet spot on chasing a new gene mutation-disease association in human subjects as well, which we do regularly in our work--I guess it applies to most things!
On COVID, I'm not a virologist, and can do a more thorough canvassing of the literature, but a search of peer reviewed literature in Pubmed reveals some good recent reviews of the literature on this topic and--while still controversial at some level--I think the preponderance of evidence most virologists would point to suggests that Wuhan market was the origin, from a number of lines of evidence. Here's one--let me know if you can't access (I think it is open access): https://www.annualreviews.org/docserver/fulltext/virology/11/1/annurev-virology-093022-013037.pdf?expires=1749691688&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=FEBFDA608D58C9C622DE0F0F521F6C6E
Annu Rev Virol 2024 Sep;11(1):21-42.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-virology-093022-013037. Epub 2024 Aug 30.
The Emergence and Evolution of SARS-CoV-2
Edward C Holmes 1
PMID: 38631919 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-virology-093022-013037
Abstract
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 has evoked heated debate and strong accusations, yet seemingly little resolution. I review the scientific evidence on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and its subsequent spread through the human population. The available data clearly point to a natural zoonotic emergence within, or closely linked to, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan. There is no direct evidence linking the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 to laboratory work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The subsequent global spread of SARS-CoV-2 was characterized by a gradual adaptation to humans, with dual increases in transmissibility and virulence until the emergence of the Omicron variant. Of note has been the frequent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from humans to other animals, marking it as a strongly host generalist virus. Unless lessons from the origin of SARS-CoV-2 are learned, it is inevitable that more zoonotic events leading to more epidemics and pandemics will plague human populations.
Here's a second:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(21)00991-0?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867421009910%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Very technical parts about the genomics, evolution, etc but their overall conclusion:
Conclusions
As for the vast majority of human viruses, the most parsimonious explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic event. The documented epidemiological history of the virus is comparable to previous animal market-associated outbreaks of coronaviruses with a simple route for human exposure. The contact tracing of SARS-CoV-2 to markets in Wuhan exhibits striking similarities to the early spread of SARS-CoV to markets in Guangdong, where humans infected early in the epidemic lived near or worked in animal markets. Zoonotic spillover by definition selects for viruses able to infect humans. Although strong safeguards should be consistently employed to minimize the likelihood of laboratory accidents in virological research, those laboratory escapes documented to date have almost exclusively involved viruses brought into laboratories specifically because of their known human infectivity.
There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, in contrast to the clear epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan, nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic. The suspicion that SARS-CoV-2 might have a laboratory origin stems from the coincidence that it was first detected in a city that houses a major virological laboratory that studies coronaviruses. Wuhan is the largest city in central China with multiple animal markets and is a major hub for travel and commerce, well connected to other areas both within China and internationally. The link to Wuhan therefore more likely reflects the fact that pathogens often require heavily populated areas to become established (Pekar et al., 2021).
We contend that although the animal reservoir for SARS-CoV-2 has not been identified and the key species may not have been tested, in contrast to other scenarios there is substantial body of scientific evidence supporting a zoonotic origin. Although the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, and may be near impossible to falsify, this conduit for emergence is highly unlikely relative to the numerous and repeated human-animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife trade. Failure to comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies would leave the world vulnerable to future pandemics arising from the same human activities that have repeatedly put us on a collision course with novel viruses.
Thanks, Kris! Not sure I can follow these but will take a look!