Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory/Archive 4

Adding a descriptor to the first sentence of the lede

 * Special:Diff/1037058644., I see you reverted my edit adding 'widely discounted'. I was merely summarizing in the first sentence what the lede section goes on to say:
 * "It was subsequently widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory"
 * "Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin, describing it as a remote possibility"
 * 'Widely' simply means a majority, which I think is fair to say given how the article describes the theory in general. What do you have an issue with here, specifically?
 * I told you in the edit summary. The term is a MOS:LABEL not widely disseminated, it fails verification, and reads unnecessarily POV and thus is unhelpful. It’s also just unclear/wrong out of context, and the later sentences provide context. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a MOS:LABEL; it's not contentious to state a fact that is already portrayed elsewhere throughout the article. How about "widely dismissed" then, since that is already used verbatim in the lede?     08:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is both, and there is a distinction between *was* widely dismissed and *is* widely dismissed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you pointing that out? Notice my second bullet Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin? How is it contentious? If we can't have this in the first sentence, why do we already have corroborations of it throughout the article?
 * And can I take your lack of comment on "widely dismissed" to mean it's okay to go forward with that?     08:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Widely discounted' and 'widely dismissed' and 'largely skeptical' all have essentially the same meaning. We could even say 'mostly dubious', as long as the point is made that the majority of reliable sources still consider the theory unlikely.     08:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I’m saying both those terms are not verifiable and you’re not quite parsing the text right. Saying that a theory *was* widely dismissed (in 2020) does not mean it *is* widely dismissed. Similarly, saying that scientists have remained “widely sceptical” is not equivalent to “widely dismissed”. And to be honest, if we get into this label adding business in the first sentence where do we stop. In addition, the term is blatantly false. Definition - it clearly has/is being given due consideration. The first sentence is perfect the way it is, and we should be happy we figured it out so early on. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Where do we stop?" Come on, don't use a slippery slope fallacy.
 * How scientists regard this theory is arguably the most important part of this article, and it should be included in the first sentence.
 * You are making trivial objections at this point. I think a consensus will find "widely dubious" or something similar to be a good thing to include. "Dubious" means "hesitating or doubting" and "not to be relied upon; suspect" and is a synonym of "skeptical".     08:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts on adding a descriptor here, ? One that represents some of the sources you added based on the discussion below? 11:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with it. To start with, "discounted" = "no longer considered" which is not the case, it's still a possibility even if it's a very small one. This is a classic case of telling the readers what to think in Wikipedia's voice, rather than laying out the evidence (of a complex issue) before them first. This is a problem – people hate being talked down to, so if a reader comes along having read about this topic, and see Wikipedia calling it "widely dismissed" in the very first instance, it's reasonably likely they'll think Wikipedia itself is just biased and/or dismissive, including of notable sources which have discussed the theory, and quite possibly they'll disengage or be sceptical about the rest of the information we're presenting them with. There's an easy alternative – lay out the facts about what the hypothesis is, and explain why, how and the extent it's considered unlikely. We're writing for the reader after all (WP:RF/WFTR). Aside from that point, that statement is not currently supported by sources, the lab leak theory is having something of a resurgence at the moment in politics, WHO action and commentary by science writers in the big journals. Jr8825  •  Talk  12:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Jr’s reasoning, and so there is no confusion if I don’t respond to the latest in this flood of alternate proposal, you can automatically also count me as opposed to whatever latest proposal you add here, unless I explicitly say otherwise, for the same arguments as made above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Skepticized proposal" is quite different from "widely discounted", and I proposed it as a comprise to the issues brought up here, namely, that readers don't like being talked down to. "Skepticized proposal" is a helpful descriptor for the first sentence because the lede section, and the rest of the article as a whole, both go on to describe the skepticism of the theory. The notion that "Skepticized proposal" is not currently supported by sources is patently false (and not what Jr was referring to). I've rattled off five sources, all already found in the article, most of them found already spells out in the footnotes, and I could've kept going but I figured five considerations was sufficient. If this is all you have to say on the matter, I can just bring it up at another venue.     00:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think "The COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis is a skepticized proposal..." would be good, as it's already said and supported elsewhere in the article: "Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin, describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence."     18:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the descriptor “skepticized” to the first sentence of lede because it is vital info for the article, and a majority of references in this article conclude that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 can be traced to bats, and that a lab-leak is extremely unlikely, dubious, and doubtful.
 * “The possibility of a laboratory release or Lab Leak was also considered, but it was determined that a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 is much more likely.”
 * "Many still caution that entertaining the idea of a lab leak requires clear scientific proof, which hasn't materialized.”
 * “The investigation concluded that an animal origin was much more likely than a lab leak.”
 * “the findings suggest that the laboratory incident hypothesis is extremely unlikely to explain introduction of the virus into the human population”
 * “Most say that the virus is very likely natural and that theories around the Wuhan Institute of Virology are a possible explanation, but they’re unlikely.”
 * "The lab leak theory doesn't hold up. The rush to find a conspiracy around the COVID-19 pandemic's origins is driven by narrative, not evidence."
 * Date: June 15, 2021
 * 23:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll probably take this dispute to WP:NPOVN or WP:RS/N next if you're going to continue reverting my edit on grounds of verifiability when it is clearly supported by a majority of reliable sources. What exactly is not verifiable about the statement? You can't say nobody called it skeptical, because a majority of scientists did. If you're so sure it's wrong to include this, you shouldn't have a hard time explaining it.     00:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have been sufficiently responded to. The verifiability issues were pointed out in your previous sets of proposals, which you kept altering. I haven’t checked the latest one (it’s frankly not respectful of others’ time to check your *fourth* proposal in barely 12 hours), but it’s irrelevant as the crux of the issue is that your strong desire to add labels is simply poor writing and unhelpful in the ways myself and Jr have already outlined. I’m not going to engage in endless ping pong here, sorry. You are free to follow the steps outlined in the Dispute resolution policy. You are not free to impose your preferences above consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't impose my preference above consensus, it was a bold edit intended to spark discussion since there was no opposition to my compromise wording "skepticism". WP:AGF.     00:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that a descriptor in the first sentence is entirely necessary. Of those that quickly come to mind (it's "not ruled out", it has elements of but isn't quite a "conspiracy theory" [though there are sources describing this as such, but that's probably not the right call here], it is "possible but unlikely"), they don't make nice descriptors. One way to get out of this could be to not describe this as something, but describe it's main claim, in the first sentence, but that appears to be what is already done. Whether "proposes" is the right verb is another question, but it doesn't seem to be in need of urgent change at the moment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As it stands the first sentence is not neutral. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE:
 * That states very clearly that including and describing academic and scholarly ideas is how we maintain neutrality, in addition to not including information the would unduly legitimize it. It should be obvious that this is an appropriate and necessary addition of information for the purpose of clarifying the scholarly and scientific perceptions of the plausible but currently unaccepted theory.     01:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That would apply if this were the Scientific consensus about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 article (you get the picture). This is a dedicated article about a minority view. What we need to do here is put this into context with the scientific view. The scientific view, as far as I can see, is that this is "possibly, but unlikely" and also, as a direct consequence of the preceding, that most scientists are not seriously considering this. I am, however, unable to find a satisfactory solution to this. As I've said, NPOV depends on the best sources, not on editor opinion, and there's very little I can find that would help resolve how to describe this, since the only words which seem to describe this somewhat accurately might be a bit too blunt, and I don't really find them commonly in sources either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through the references, all I find are corroborations that while a lab leak is possible, it is unlikely and not evidenced. I've quoted several of them. My goal here is to simply have what the sources say about the scientific view/consensus represented in the first sentence of the lede. I'll admit I'm not sure the best way to do that, but leaving it out gives lends to WP:FALSEBALANCE, and I find "skepticized" to be a very accurate, practically verbatim representation of the sources. I'm only using "proposal" because that is the status qou already in the lede. I'd be open to changing that too.     02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm never convinced when I see "label" excuses to exclude accuracy (also a common complaint with the application of WP:PSCI), but I doubt "skepticized" is a good choice. I see RandomCanadian mention that it's a minority view, which reminds me of "minor hypothesis", in case it would make sense and that some sources describe it as such...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As it looks like the page is going to be moved to COVID-19 lab leak theory, what if we said what all the reliable sources are saying: "unlikely theory". I've seen no WP:RSs that don't refer to the lab leak an unlikely theory one way or another.     06:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * God knows why you're so determined it needs a value-laden label there but, aside from other issues, you do realise it just makes our article read more dubious, right? Like in the eyes of a reader, perhaps one that already knows a bit about the theory from various 'reliable sources', what do you believe more: a Wikipedia that does a holistic discussion of the theory, including the very clear position of scientists; or a Wikipedia that jumps right into spamming every pejorative label it can think of? In my experience, and that's as a Wikipedia editor and not just a reader, I automatically read articles of the latter variety with even more sceptical eyes. Your proposal is literally counter-productive to what you want. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It does not make our article more dubious to read by having the very first sentence be an accurate summary of the lede–the opposite–it makes it more neutral because omitting it is false balance and not giving due weight. The only reason not to summarize the lede with what the scientific consensus is would be
 * 1) if the corroborating text in the lead that spells out that the theory is unlikely is changed to indicate a different scientific consensus or have less weight indicating that the scientific consensus is not important
 * 2) if there is a good reason not to follow WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:GOODLEDE/NPOV precedent on including and describing ideas in proper context and weight with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
 * But neither of those have been presented.
 * The scientific consensus is vitally important and it is an objective fact, and should be presented in the first sentence for that reason. I have no dispute over what you want to call the scientific consensus (although the lede right now clearly seems to call it an "unlikely theory"). Feel free to tell me why it isn't essential information though,, or rebut one of the other two points, instead of calling my proposal "literally counter-productive".     10:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to put a judgement of the topic right in the first sentence. A good comparison would be Moon landing conspiracy theories, where the subject is described in the first paragraph, before being put into context in the second. See WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." So we should A) describe the lab leak theory by succinctly summarising its main claim [that the virus, some way or another, escaped from the WIV] and then B) describe the dispute about it [by noting that the idea has been deemed unlikely by most scientists]. Seeking to describe it as dubious right from the start is counter-productive, both in our goal of writing an accurate encyclopedia and for informing/educating the reader about a topic they might only have heard of in the press. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are fair points. However, the difference with the comparison of the Moon landing article is that it has "conspiracy theory" in its title so it is already disputed from the start. This article does not have a disputed title, so I think it is necessary to indicate the disputed nature of the lab leak theory in the first sentence per WP:IMPARTIAL. Not doing so lends undue credence. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  16:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think resolves the need for any change to the first sentence. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲   talk  00:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think resolves the need for any change to the first sentence. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲   talk  00:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2021
For the line: “Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely“

Given that only a few references were provided to back this statement up and many ongoing international intelligence reports have not yet been completed the use of “most” is incorrect and politically biased since no evidence for this theory have been provided. This should be replaced with a more balanced statement with reference to more up to date data from here: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6543/694.1

“Most scientists agree that hypotheses about both natural and laboratory spillovers should be taken seriously until sufficient data is provided.” 90.254.218.167 (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

"US President Donald Trump"
I noticed you removed one version that said "then US President" as well as my version that said "Formal US President". Can you please help me understand why we would not want the following sentence from the lede section to say "former":

–– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  02:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For consistency between lead and body. See § First Appearance: The lab leak theory was disseminated in early 2020 by United States politicians and media, particularly US President Donald Trump....
 * That section says President, not "former President".
 * Also for chronological accuracy. The theory gained popularity through its promotion by the US president. It was subsequently widely dismissed. We're saying this took place when he was the president (rather than a former president). -Dervorguilla (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense for the most part. If we're trying to say this took place when he was the president though, shouldn't we specify that it was "then US President Donald Trump" or "US President at the time, Donald Trump"? –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  03:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In context, that's precisely what all three of these mean. I'm just trying to keep things concise in the lead.
 * If we're trying to emphasize this specific detail, however, it becomes a descriptive phrase and is therefore lowercased: ‘the then secretary of state Hillary Clinton’. Chicago Manual of Style, ¶ 8.21 ("Titles used in apposition"). -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's only knowable through context though. We refer to Joe Biden exactly the same way as we do Trump:
 * "US president Joe Biden"
 * "US President Donald Trump"
 * So I'm still thinking we should have it say something like 'current President Biden' or 'then President Trump' in order to disambiguate. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  05:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A relevant example from MOS:JOBTITLES -
 * Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972.
 * Not, "then US President..." -Dervorguilla (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  18:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory text
Two apparently conflicting claims in the current text:


 * "the experiments in question (involving chimeric viruses) were not conducted at the WIV"
 * "A 2017 study of chimeric bat coronaviruses at the WIV"

Which is correct? I don't have time today to check the sources, any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Jr8825  •  Talk  17:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first was a 2015 study (as I believe it says in context) that was conducted at UNC. The 2017 study is the subject of much less secondary source speculation and commentary. But we should probably still find commentary about it. The 2017 study has also been described by some as GoFR, and others as not GoFR.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The Times: First Covid carrier probably Chinese scientist, says WHO
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this discussion in Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. That said, holy editorialized title, Batman! Bakkster Man (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Serious verifiability issues
I've checked a handful of the lead sentences, and almost all either failed verifiability, were improper synthesis of sources, or otherwise violated core content policies. Some, perhaps most, are probably fixable either by finding other sources or by rewording the statements we make. But please can we be careful to accurately represent the sources? Also, can I get some help checking verifiability for the rest of the article? I'm a bit worried if this trend continues throughout. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Shibb. I think your sources do improve the verifiability of the statement.
 * I'd now suggest splitting the statement up into two. The statement made is Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely. This is supported by news sources #1, #2, #3 and #4. The quotes from academic sources (#1, #2, #3, #4) support the idea that the lab leak theory has no evidence. Those two ideas are separate. I don't think the academic sources, at least the given quotes, support the statement made and probably don't even need to, but they could support a new statement (on the scientific evidence for lab leak, or lack thereof). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Happy to help. Disagree with splitting up the statement. Those same sources describe the evidence that exists for zoonotic emergence. If they say evidence exists for zoonotic emergence, but does not exist for the lab leak, they are concurring with the assessment of "more likely" for the zoonotic origin. The academic sources don't have to say "most scientists say X" or "Z is more likely than Y", because academic reviews almost never do that. They just state facts. In this case, these academic sources are "clarifying" the scientific consensus, exactly as WP:RS/AC asks them to do.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 10:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree they don't need to say that but I do think "natural origin is more likely" is not equivalent to "lab leak is unlikely". The quotations only show it saying the latter, are you sure they all also say the former? (you don't need to find or add quotes, I'll take your word for it.) My concern in that case is keeping cites in the bundle that do not verify the exact statement made, which would be either redundant or make verifiability harder. If you're sure that's not the case, then that's not a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , If "lab leak is unlikely" but "zoonotic origin is supported by evidence," then "natural origin is more likely" is a valid way to interpret these academic sources. In my opinion, it's summary. That's the way scientific statements work, they are formed on the shared opinion that things with evidence are more likely than things without evidence. I wouldn't say that for news sources, because they are different. But like I said, academic reviews rarely state "Z is more likely than Y." I am not 100% sure they all directly say that evidence exists for a zoonotic origin, but I know that many of them do say that. Others may just describe the evidence without saying it exists, for example, the fact that coronaviruses are typically found in bats.- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 11:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That rationale seems sound, I think, certainly as long as they all discuss the evidence for natural origin. The original FV on that particular statement is probably actually my own fault, since I previously argued that the news sources weren't necessary or were problematic to introduce and sticking to journals was better, not quite realising (at the time) the difficulty it adds to verifiability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The second portion of preceding sentence (Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin, describing it as a remote possibility and citing a lack of supporting evidence) also seems to have a verifiability/WP:RS/AC issue?. It's currently cited to this, which is about the WHO's opinion, and the second source (The Guardian) doesn't say that thing (of scientific consensus it says Meanwhile, outside of US intelligence circles, the broad consensus among scientific experts remains that the most likely explanation is that Covid-19 jumped to humans from an animal host in a natural event.; its only discussion of the evidence is not attributed to scientists), which verifies the sentence discussed above but not the one it's actually being used to verify. I think it fails verifiability as-is, but it appears some out of your bundle of citations would verify it instead. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think this is a style issue, where people don't like to have every single sentence cited repeatedly. My perception was that the consensus citation verifies both. but we could duplicate it.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 11:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's cited to different sources though. If there were no citations then yes, default assumption is that the next cite to appear will verify the statement. Removing the two cites and letting it run on is a valid solution, I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I made some edits to address the synth tag on the statement that "Some scientists ... concerned about the risks of politicization and polarization...", I moved an additional Nature source which mentions politicisation to more clearly support it, but removed it again as I realised it was cited at the end of the sentence. Both sources at the end of the sentence also support that clause. I added an article from MIT Tech Review which interviews scientists and discusses politicisation/polarisation. I also removed the wikilink to group polarization, which I agree was synth on my part when I originally rewrote it – I was trying to aid readers with wikilinks to concepts, but I agree the term isn't explicitly/exclusively being used in terms of psychology. I think that addresses the tag, but I'm open to rewording if you feel it's still not properly supported. Jr8825  •  Talk  13:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To support the statement the source needs to say that some scientists agree more investigation is required (even though they are concerned about "politicization and polarization"). IMO it's not enough to say that some scientists are calling for more investigations, and in another article (or, apparently now, the same one) say some (other?) scientists experienced a chilling effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Some other comments:
 * this edit removed a source and the FV, but the statement still fails verification. The source says: The theory that the novel coronavirus escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology has gained ground in recent months,1 not least because of suspicions generated by the extreme reticence of China’s government. This does not say: The statement still fails verification.
 * In regards to MOS:LEADCITE, every sentence other than that is cited in the lead. If you have a single sentence uncited it seems like it's being sourced to the next cite available. Really there should be either no lead cites and all in body, lead cites only for controversial material, or lead cites for all material. Since we've decided the 3rd, it's not helpful to exempt a sentence or two from it, it just makes it harder to see what is sourced and what isn't. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first sentence, I looked for scientific sources. I found Rasmussen's Jan article in Nature, which says "growing speculation that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a laboratory, based on the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic began in the same city as the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a state-of-the-art virology lab that conducts research on bat coronaviruses". I think that's clear and adequate enough, so I changed the wording slightly to match the source ("founded upon" → "developed from") and added it. There's also reputable journalistic sources such as the editorial board of the Financial Times ("A leak from a lab is only a hypothesis, based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but a plausible one. Wuhan’s Huanan seafood market where Covid-19 was initially detected is ideal for "zoonotic transfer" of a virus across the species barrier — wild animals were in close contact with each other and with humans. Yet it is also only 12km from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which houses a large collection of coronaviruses; another institute, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, is even closer. Lab escapes have caused disease outbreaks before") and the Economist ("The first flutterings of lab-leak concern were prompted by simple geography. That market is just 12km away from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), a global centre for coronavirus research. The Wuhan Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also worked on bat coronaviruses, is closer still: a mere 500 metres")  which reinforce this, although I didn't add them as I think it was unnecessary and better to stick to the words that come directly from the scientists' mouths.  Jr8825  •  Talk  18:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Rasmussen's piece does the job. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a major point of speculation. Some sources also mentioned the reason for the proximity of such labs to natural hotspots, which may be useful in the context...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding politicisation and polarisation, I think a third pair of eyes is needed, as in my view the four sources in that sentence support the statement. Nature (Apr) discusses how some scientists feel the investigations have been impacted by politicisation already (particularly the WHO report), how politicisation makes the investigation far more difficult and how it could eventually make it impossible to get the bottom of the virus's origins (those are "risks" in my book); Nature (May) talks about how some scientists think polticisation and polarisation might make it harder for countries to work together on the investigation and future pandemics, and also could cause bullying & racism; MIT and NYT talks about/quote scientists as saying politicisation has led to polarisation, which has a negative impact on the scientists' willingness to openly discuss their concerns during the investigations. Jr8825  •  Talk  18:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Repeating some of my comment above: some sources do mention the context where apparently some scientists feared to propose it because of the Trump administration's controversial claims. Most don't, since it's mostly a question of evidence: if there had been plausible evidence to present, it would have been irrelevant (and a now closed "investigation" group of the previous administration could have been right and could have exposed it)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with you on those points I think. I'm just not sure the current prose is a valid paraphrase of all that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that there are several related but separate points here, and I can't think of another way to word them without taking up considerably more space, which is not ideal because they're less important than the overall arc of the sentence (about some scientists agreeing it should be investigated) and it's not a crucial enough to the topic to warrant a full explanation in the lead. If I remember correctly, the original wording (before I rephrased it) was "despite misgivings", which was unclear and vague (readers would be left wondering what those "misgivings" were). It could, of course, just be entirely removed – although the prominent mentions of politicisation in news coverage (in the journals and in the quality news press) mean there's a due weight case for keeping it in. I'm content with the current wording myself, but I'm open to any suggestions. I tried coming up with a more precise paraphrase and it just got longer and longer, maybe someone else can think of something? In particular, it seems there's a nuanced difference about past and future concerns: some scientists say the impact of politicisation on the investigation so far has caused them to avoid voicing their concerns and caused the lab leak theory to be dismissed before it was conclusively examined & disproven; then there are concerns voiced about what might happen if this polarising, political aspect continues, it could result in further pressure on scientists, prevent the cooperation necessary to reach a conclusive answer either way (due to poor US-China relations) and cause polarisation and racism in society. Jr8825  •  Talk  14:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with that value-laden descriptor in the lead paragraph makes the article look more dubious. The lead paragraph should describe the theory for the reader. Some of the sources in the citebomb also fail verification. Sgnpkd (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Which ones? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead has changed considerably since this thread was started – it was addressing text that has now been removed/changed – so I expect your concerns are different to ProcrastinatingReader's. Which descriptor do you think is objectionable? I don't see any problems with the first lead para. myself right now. Jr8825  •  Talk  17:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To and, I'm referring to the second sentence of the lead paragraph with the citebomb, which is discussed above in "Adding a descriptor to the first sentence" part. The descriptor is improper per WP:DUE, but also fails in verification, and this edit from Shibbolethink  does not sit well with the latest news reports . Sgnpkd (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources fail verification? If you let me know which ones, I'm happy to double check. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Lab leak"/"natural origin" not mutually exclusive?

 * I think the following part of the lead is misleading: Scientists have largely remained skeptical of a lab leak origin ... Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely. This implies that "lab leak" and "natural origin" are two mutually exclusive possibilities. In fact, this is exactly the opposite. All leaks of pathogens from labs, even such as Sverdlovsk anthrax leak (a leak in the process of creating a biological weapon) were leaks of pathogens of natural origin. I realize that such misinformation came from the cited sources, but I think it should not appear in the lead of our page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think part of the issue is that there has been, to a large degree, a conflation between the possibility, however remote, of a pathogen of natural origin accidentally leaking from a lab wherein it was being studied, and the far more outlandish conspiracy theory that the virus was artificially engineered as a bioweapon and leaked, or even intentionally released, from a lab. The tentative acknowledgement of the former by some scientists has been seized upon by conspiracy theorists as confirmation of the latter. The problem is that both groups generally use the same term ("lab leak") when referring to these substantively different theories. This can lead to seeming contradictions, where someone promoting the latter form of "lab leak" is contradicted by someone pointing to the likely "natural origin", while also acknowledging that a virus of "natural origin" might have, but probably didn't, "leak" from a lab. They aren't mutually exclusive when the terms are accurately used, but because the term "lab leak" is being inappropriately co-opted by some conspiracists, in common parlance they often are reported as such. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the first sentence of the lede here. This isn't really applicable, you may want to start a new section for a discussion on that part of the lede.     01:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The major issue here is that those who propose that a lab leak may have happened describe it as a possible origin of the pandemic. While lab leaks incidents are not impossible, that one would be the origin of a pandemic is considered even less likely.  This article wouldn't exist if proponents didn't describe it as the source of the pandemic.  If there had been evidence of a recent leak, we would also instead have an article on a specific incident and this would likely have been known by US and French collaborators.  Moreover, there is a tendency to politicize the "politicization", claiming that it's the context, rather than the unlikelyhood and lack of evidence, that causes it to be considered unlikely (still today after the disinformation from the Trump administration, not helping is the scientific understanding that spillovers from nature are regular)...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 06:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I also see the potential problem here, so I've broken this into a separate subsection for discussion. The problem is the wording "far more likely" because it's being contrasted with the possibility of a lab leak (the previous wording, "most likely origin" contained the same issue). Is this a case of us inaccurately paraphrasing the scientists (are they actually saying, "natural zoonosis/spillover in the community is far more likely [than a lab leak]", and we're summarising them incorrectly)? Or are they actually talking about the virus' genetic origin, and so not discussing it in the context of origin pathways? I don't have the time to open up all the sources right now, so pinging again, since they worked on the 'consensus cite' for this.  Jr8825  •  Talk  14:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That was discussed already in section above Talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory. User Shibbolethink get it right, and it was described correctly on the page in section COVID-19_lab_leak_theory. We just need to describe this accordingly in the lead. Yes, the proponents of the theory claimed a number of different things (as was correctly pointed out by Shibbolethink), but the most common version debated by credible experts was merely an accidental leak from the lab of the natural pathogen which would start the pandemic. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with The sentence in question DOES suggest that "lab leak" and "natural origin" theories are mutually exclusive, which they ARE NOT. Thus it IS misleading. I ask for a permission to change Most scientists agree that a natural origin is far more likely into ...the most likely / ...agree (only) on a natural origin of the virus or something like that. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"Gain-of-function virus"/"Deliberate genetic engineering" not mutually exclusive?

 * Similar to the section above, I'm unsure whether our section headers are inaccurately treating the two things as mutually exclusive. Isn't it the case that gain-of-function research is, effectively, "deliberate" genetic engineering, as it produces a genetically modified organism/virus? If this is the case, should we try to find a title for the section "deliberate genetic engineering" that more clearly distinguishes it from the section "accidental release of gain-of-function virus"? Perhaps "Other claims of genetic engineering"? Or even "Intentional bioweapon conspiracies" etc. (is that what those conspiracy theories claim)? Jr8825  •  Talk  14:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a link to COVID-19 misinformation, which maybe resolves this and makes it clear enough?  Jr8825  •  Talk  14:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect we probably need a bit more clarity in the title as well. It can go both ways. On one hand, the latter "deliberate" example I think was well described by the WHO: "deliberate engineering for release: aka bio-weapon. On the other hand, there's a reason GoFR is considered dual-use: the only practical difference between GoFR to prevent pandemics and genetic engineering to create a weapon is end-use.
 * Perhaps clarifying both categories with that ascribed motive would make sense, but perhaps it makes more sense to combine them under GoFR with further sub-headings for the proposed motives. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that gain of function research is a subset of deliberate genetic engineering (including serial passaging, genetic modification (CRISPR, no see'm, etc). You can modify an organism's genome and cause a loss of function, or cause no change in function, and that would not be GoF. However, all GoF is inherently deliberate alteration of the genome, and therefore is part of "deliberate genetic engineering." You don't accidentally perform GoF, you were doing something that had the possibility of causing GoF, and are therefore liable for the consequences. This is how the CDC and NIH view it anyway. I think we've talked about this particular angle on a few different talk pages . Re:, I think we're in agreement that "deliberate engineering for release" is just another way to say "intentional release of an engineered virus." There is also, of course, "accidental release of an engineered virus." But it's important to note why we conflate these last two in some places: it's because the evidence we have shows both are extremely unlikely (to the point of being conspiracy theories in wiki-voice). And this evidence is all about the genome itself. It doesn't matter whether or not anybody was trying to release it, if the genome is plainly, obviously, to most virologists, a natural genome. Part of me thinks this would be a good entry on the Origins consensus template, if we keep rehashing the same points... But there is some novelty here. What do you guys think?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think we need to be careful of how we describe the intentionality. Intentional modification of the genome is what's alleged, what the genomic evidence relates to, and should be what we describe. Even among the wildest bioweapon theories I haven't seen anyone suggesting the 'evil geniuses' developing a biological weapon at the WIV schemed to release it in their own back yard... But I agree, we've workshopped these kinds of descriptions before, we should do it again. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with BM here. We should not conflate intentional release of an engineered virus with accidental release of an engineered virus. Regardless of how likely or unlikely they are, our sources treat them differently. Some of our sources even treat different types of engineering differently. ImmaculateMeddler (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's quite what Bakkster Man was saying. And I'm quite happy to group conspiracy theories about a deliberate bioweapon release with far-fetched theories about an accidental bioweapon release. My question is: how do we distinguish between "gain-of-function" research of a natural genome and the conspiracies about a 'designed' virus? In both narratives, they virus is created through deliberate genetic engineering – what words do we use to distinguish our separate discussions of the two? Jr8825  •  Talk  20:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's two distinct elements going on:
 * What, if any, intentional genetic engineering happened, and why was it performed (ie. understand and prevent future pandemics vs develop a weapon)
 * How was the virus introduced to human circulation, and was it intentional
 * So two elements of the origins, each further split into the element which can be tested scientifically (genomic studies or epidemiology) and those which are speculation about intention. I think the goal should be to split out and discuss these elements in these contexts, without conflating where it's inappropriate, but combining for brevity where it is. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this an adequate solution? Also, I'm still keen to hear Shibbolethink's take on the question raised about the precise nature of the scientific consensus in the above section. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , a deliberately engineered virus is not specially a bioweapon. Genetic engineering is a dual use technology. The keyword here is intent. ImmaculateMeddler (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct – I was just being lazy/brief with my characterisations while making a separate point in the discussion. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter Embarek: “likely hypothesis”

 * “An employee who was infected in the field while collecting samples falls under one of the likely hypotheses,” he said. 




 * In new documentary, WHO scientist says Chinese officials pressured investigation to drop lab-leak hypothesis



Remember all those bans from wikiactivists to those who even dared to mention this scenario a few months ago? 188.27.36.191 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If a researcher was infected in the field by a wild bat, it wouldn't exactly be a 'lab leak', would it? See: Direct zoonotic transmission in a natural setting for more. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And it there any evidence that someone was banned for specifically suggesting that a Chinese researcher could have caught COVID from natural means outside the lab because that would be significant different than the idea a   laboratory sample escaping containment and the people from the lab were lying about it?--65.93.194.2 (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You tell me. Make sure it's not just because the person got banned for failing to properly source, and not retroactively implying we should have had a WP:CRYSTALBALL back then. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm Danish and have seen a video clip with his actual statement in Danish:
 * "En medarbejder på laboratie bliver smittet ude i felt mens han eller hun samler prøver i en flagermus grotte. Og sådan et scenario hører også med, selvom det hører med under laboratorieudslip, hører den også med under den første hypotese som vi har, som er hypotesen flagermus direkte til menneske overførsler. Og den hypotese har vi betragtet som en sandsynlig hypotese."
 * The Google translation is fairly good:
 * "A laboratory worker is infected in the field while collecting samples in a bat cave. And such a scenario also belongs, even though it belongs under laboratory releases, it also belongs under the first hypothesis that we have, which is the hypothesis bats directly to human transfers. And that hypothesis we have regarded as a probable hypothesis."
 * I assume the English stories are based on this but "probable hypothesis" only refers to bats infecting humans directly. A laboratory worker in the field is merely mentioned as a way it could happen. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This direct quote is far more cautious than the media reporting around it, which isn't surprising given how past articles have paraphrased similar comments. I agree, I interpret that to be less a suggestion that "COVID likely came from a researcher collecting samples in the wild", and more along the lines that "the probably pathway was a bat virus directly infecting humans in the wild, and a researcher collecting samples is one possible way that might have happened". As you said, the "likely hypothesis" is direct bat -> human infection, not that the human in this instance was a researcher. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Should we say, in wiki-voice, that the WIV was conducting "controversial gain-of-function research?"
in the background section, it says: "The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) has been conducting research on SARS-like bat coronaviruses since 2005, including controversial gain-of-function research."

The sources cited for the latter half of this statement are:

The MIT article says:

The BBC article says:

The SciAm article does not include the term "gain-of-function" at all. I've removed this source from the statement for this reason.

There also was a Newsweek article cited for this claim, which says:

But it's important to note that Newsweek is not generally considered a reliable source for claims mired in politics/science like this, and especially not controversial claims. See WP:NEWSWEEK. I removed this source for this reason, but we should mention it here.

Washington Post:

The WaPo Fact-Checker ultimately found the claim that the NIH had funded GoFR false, rating it as "2 pinocchios."

FactCheck.org also has this gem:

From these sources and quotes, it's clear that whether or not any of the experiments at the WIV count as "gain-of-function" is heavily disputed by the experts. So, I ask you, should we say in wiki-voice that the WIV has conducted "controversial gain-of-function research" ? -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Do we have any sources discussing it outside the (apparently unfounded) accusation that the NIH was funding it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No nobody agrees what exactly "gain-of-function" research means, so even if there was fairly good sourcing that they were doing it (and the sourcing I see makes clear it's disputed) I would avoid this specific buzzword. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 22:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The controversy regarding gain-of-function research at WIV is well-documented in discussions of the lab leak theory.. A 2015 paper from researchers at the WIV themselves discussed their research as gain-of-function ("Together, these data and restrictions represent a crossroads of GOF [gain-of-function] research concerns; the potential to prepare for and mitigate future outbreaks must be weighed against the risk of creating more dangerous pathogens.") I'm not at all tied to the current wording—I just put something up to take a first pass at it—so I'm fine with adding attribution rather than wikivoice if that makes more sense. But it seems important and relevant enough that it should certainly be included in some form. Stonkaments (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , even if it was up to the researchers themselves (it isn’t), that isn’t what that statement means. They are acknowledging that the entire genre/avenue of experiments creates concerns, not that their specific research met any definition of GoFR. The preceding and following paragraphs are about how careful one must be to avoid these concerns and dangers when planning experiments. I feel you may have inadvertently left out very important context. Especially given that the lead author on this study (Baric) has clarified that none of the research within it is GoFR in his eyes. (See above) and even more importantly, that the research was not conducted at the WIV, but at UNC. See here: "“We never introduced mutations into the SHC014 [horseshoe bat coronavirus] spike to enhance growth in human cells, though the work demonstrated that bat SARS-like viruses were intrinsically poised to emerge in the future,” he added. “These recombinant clones and viruses were never sent to China.”" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have any credible, uninvolved experts said the WIV wasn't doing gain-of-function research? Surely we shouldn't put much weight on a denial by involved parties like Fauci or the EcoHealth Alliance (WP:MANDY). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonkaments (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you not find Alina Chan, Angela Rasmussen , or the NIH credible? I also find the idea that Anthony Fauci is somehow "involved" to be inherently partisan. He is involved in the same way the SEC is "involved" in hedge fund mergers. Would you also consider Francis Collins involved? BTW, WP:MANDY only applies when an independent investigation has found the claims to be credible in the first place. Which is not the case here.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The NIH was involved in funding the WIV, so no I don't think they (or Fauci, by extension) are neutral or credible on this issue. And unless I'm mistaken, Rasmussen is saying the 2015 research was in fact gain-of-function research ("The irony is that those gain-of-function studies provided valuable information about the biology of SARS-CoV-2.") I also don't find Chan very credible—it sounds like she's a postdoc with a Twitter account? And anyway, it sounds like she's arguing about the precise definition of "gain-of-function" with respect to the U.S. government moratorium, which isn't directly applicable to the WIV. On the other hand we have at least Ebright and Simon Wain-Hobson arguing that they were clearly conducting gain-of-function research, and the dangers it posed. Also, per WP:SPADE, how is research that created a hybrid version of a bat coronavirus that could infect human cells anything but gain-of-function research? Stonkaments (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , aside from this entire back and forth about who is credible (about which it appears we disagree), do you have any sources which say that this research was actually conducted by, or at, the WIV?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point that the 2015 research wasn't conducted at WIV, but WIV researchers being involved still seems like relevant context that should be included. The NY Times source, for example, mentions that UNC researchers were working with data sent from Wuhan.
 * Regarding more recent research, of the sources I've seen Newsweek was the most explicit: "But just last year, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the organization led by Dr. Fauci, funded scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions for work on gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses." But I understand your concerns about Newsweek, especially for making an important claim like this in wikivoice. Besides that, we have the claim from Ebright ("the research was—unequivocally—gain-of-function research"), as well as Kevin Esvelt ("certain techniques that the researchers used seemed to meet the definition of gain-of-function research"). Stonkaments (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The solution to this is to describe the dispute, not engage in it. So we just say "gain-of-function research" without putting in Wikivoice that it's controversial, and we possibly add something about whether the research truly was GOFR. The controversy about GOFR should be described in short detail in the relevant section of the "Versions" bit, and wikilinked to the article on GOFR, where I assume a more thorough treatment can be made if that is not already the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with this approach. We should describe the dispute. I've added the quotes discussed here to the article in brief, and agree the wikilink to GoFR is helpful in that regard. We don't discuss it enough depth there, but we do discuss it some under the "COVID-19 pandemic" heading.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good solution as well. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  00:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I did find this relevant passage right in that cited BBC source
 * Was US money used for 'gain-of-function' studies?. ..
 * One prominent scientist supporting this view - and quoted by Senator Paul - is Prof Richard Ebright of Rutgers University. . ..
 * "The research in both papers was gain-of-function research", he said.
 * No opinion as to whether any GOF research at WIV was or is controversial per RS. -Dervorguilla (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Why are there disputes on whether something is GOF? Is it really that hard to define it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes. It is like debating whether or not something counts as pornography. Some things are quite obviously pornographic (Playboy spreads), some are quite obviously innocent (pictures of your 5 y/o in the bath, the Venus de Milo), and some things are very much in the grey area (erotic fan-fiction, Sex comedy films). In that discussion, the determining question is typically "Does it have artistic value?"
 * In the case of GoFR (by the NIH's definition), the question is "Can the experiment have a reasonable expectation that their experiment will, in any way, increase the virulence or tropism of the pathogen in mammals?" In the case of these experiments, since the beginning and end result were purely bat viruses, and the viruses were not allowed to infect human cells more than once, the answer is, in the opinion of many experts, "no." However, others are operating by a different definition, e.g. "Is this experiment scary, or problematic in some other way?" And so they draw the answer as "yes."-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also it is my understanding that there is a decent amount of gray room in the "reasonable expectation" part. For instance, there could be research that results in gain of function, but if that result was unexpected (i.e. they neither intended to cause GOF nor was there a reasonable expectation that they would), then having funded that research would not be considered funding GOFR. (I believe Alex Greninger may have discussed this in the context of WIV, but I will have to look for the exact quote). NonReproBlue (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Is this experiment scary or problematic?" isn't a fair characterization of the argument. Note the Wikipedia article for gain-of-function research includes host range, i.e. "the types of hosts that a microorganism can infect", as one of its defining characteristic. Modifying a bat virus to infect human cells clearly fits that definition. Here's another NY Times article that provides confirmation: "Dr. Baric conducted N.I.H.-approved gain-of-function research at his lab at the University of North Carolina using information on viral genetic sequences provided by Dr. Shi." This should really be in wikivoice, not limited to "some experts". Stonkaments (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , This experiment did not modify a bat virus to infect human cells, you have misunderstood the paper. The bat virus' spike protein could already infect human cells. The backbone virus could already infect human cells. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources seem to disagree with your understanding of the paper. The FactCheck article, in discussing the views of Stanley Perlman, refers to the 2017 study as "making a virus that could infect human cells in a lab". MIT Technology Review says, "the chimera he made using SHC014 proved able to infect human cells in a dish", and "Although his creation might be more dangerous than the original mouse-adapted virus he’d used as a backbone, it was still wimpy compared with SARS...". Stonkaments (talk) 08:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for furnishing that rather persuasive source (Qin and Buckley, "[Shi] Speaks Out", NY Times). It does indeed say that Dr. Baric conducted N.I.H.-approved gain-of-function research at his lab... And we're here to report what prominent RSs report. (Not to praise or bury them.😊) –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That quote says that it was "at his lab at the University of North Carolina", not at WIV. As far as I can tell, this discussion is about whether to say that WIV was conducting gain-of-function research, not whether UNC was, right? NonReproBlue (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion apparently has developed to include both topics. (See WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN.) –Dervorguilla (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I, like you, find Chen "credible". But she's not prominent. At least, not prominent in published RSs. –Dervorguilla (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , uhhh...what about these RSes?.
 * Chan's not prominent within those sources, though. See the CHERRYPICKING essay re selecting from "multiple sources within a source". To illustrate: RSs and  each mention multiple other sources multiple times, Chan just once.  and  each mention Chan's views just twice.
 * Note that the third source in your list of four (Health Feedback) advertises itself as a crowd-sourced network. We don't normally treat these as RSs. –Dervorguilla (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that she's not a particularly notable scientist, and is not prominent in literature sources, but to the media, she is DUE, especially on this very narrow topic (the 2015 paper and gain of function), where we are starved for expert opinions and there are extremely few RSes in the first place. In the very narrow topic of "coverage of the 2015 paper" she is DUE, as there are extremely few sources, and she appears in several of them. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, you absolutely could include Bloom/whoever else as a source on this, if there is a good quote from him and it fits. I couldn't find a good one that was useful. Other people can also be DUE in addition to Chan. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked about Alina Chan in Wikiproject Viruses, the link is here. Only two users replied, Ypna and Shibbolethink.   . On a case by case basis, I support citing Chan here for notability but I believe it is likely that the upcoming biosafety literature of 2021/2022 will get us a more expert voice on this. Forich (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked about Alina Chan in Wikiproject Viruses, the link is here. Only two users replied, Ypna and Shibbolethink.   . On a case by case basis, I support citing Chan here for notability but I believe it is likely that the upcoming biosafety literature of 2021/2022 will get us a more expert voice on this. Forich (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)