A lot of "science" looks like religion to me.
Attitudes, beliefs and rituals are important. Meanwhile, evidence, disclosure and reproducibility are not. The end result is that "science" has become less reliable than a coin flip. This isn't actual science of course, yet the emergence of a deadly pandemic has only worsened the replication crisis.
On top of that, there are several aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic that deserve investigation, scientific rigor and objective discussion, yet they often seem to invite public shaming or ad hominem attacks. These topics include:
Dual-Use Research
Gain of function experimentation is called dual-use research because it can be used to advance medical knowledge, or, it can be used as a weapon.
Should governments fund experiments that intentionally create, reconstruct or alter a pathogen to become deadlier or more transmissible to humans (with respect to any pathogen that currently exists in nature), or to become more resistant to existing drugs, treatments or vaccines?
Statistically speaking, the non-zero risk of human error, human frailty, political interference and ignorant custodianship suggests the likelihood of a negative outcome on a long enough timeline.
Lab Leak
To suggest the possibility that a virus escaped from a lab is not to imply that the virus was created in a lab. For example, it is generally accepted that SARS-CoV originated in animals. It is also generally accepted that SARS-CoV was accidentally released from multiple labs.
The World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that breaches of safety procedures at one of Beijing's top virology laboratories were the probable cause of a deadly outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2004.
“Clearly there was a link to the Institute of Virology, and our investigations are still ongoing, but we haven't found a single incident that links the two cases of laboratory workers at the institute, so it appears to be two separate breaches of bio-safety, and we can't find any single incident or accident that explains either case. It has raised real concerns about bio-safety in general, how bio-safety guidelines are implemented, and how that is supervised and monitored," said Dr. Julie Hall, WHO's coordinator in China of communicable disease surveillance and response at the time.
Lab Creation
On Feb. 19, 2020, The Lancet published a statement, authored by more than two dozen scientists who declared no competing interests, that stood to "condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin."
It was later revealed that the primary organizer of the letter did not disclose a working relationship with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Nevertheless, this same individual was appointed by the World Health Organization to investigate the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic in China.
The WHO investigation agreed to a precondition that the team would not entertain the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 had originated in a lab. Additionally, the WHO investigation team was given screened information. "Did the Chinese colleagues hand over the complete raw data files? No, they did not. But then again, I did not expect that in a mission like this," said virologist Marion Koopmans, DVM, PhD.
Months since the investigation began, the origin of the virus has yet to be found.
"A viable natural origin for the SARS-CoV-2 S1–S2 site through recombination or mutation of a bat-origin virus has proved to be elusive," wrote Gary Whittaker, PhD in the Oct. 2021 issue of The Lancet. To be clear, the inability to find a natural origin of the virus does not imply a higher probability that the virus was created in a laboratory.
Nevertheless, much investigative time, effort and analysis has gone into searching for a natural origin of COVID-19, and those attempts are thus far unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the possibility of a lab origin remains largely un-investigated, and perhaps permanently obfuscated.
Masks
The CDC's current guidance on the "Community Use of Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2" only contains studies that demonstrated a benefit. Two studies that had been interpreted differently were dismissed on the grounds that the "study was too small" or because the study "had a number of limitations."
It makes sense to exclude statistically insignificant or poorly controlled studies, but those same exclusionary criteria should be applied to all of the studies, regardless of their conclusions.
For example, one study that demonstrated the benefits of masks in Arizona schools failed to control for which schools were open or closed for summer break. This is reasonable grounds to invalidate the work, notwithstanding its other shortcomings.
Conversely, the CDC had published prior a systematic review "of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community." The review concluded that "None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group," yet included the important caveat that "Most studies were underpowered because of limited sample size, and some studies also reported suboptimal adherence in the face mask group."
In the absence of a properly controlled study with a statistically significant sample size, the benefit of masks in a non-healthcare setting is still anecdotal.
Vaccines
Earlier this fall, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany and France had lessened the use of Moderna's vaccine to examine a hypothesis that the inoculation posed risks in certain demographics. In parallel, a U.S. FDA advisory panel was considering whether to recommend booster shots of the Moderna vaccine. The vote was unanimous.
“I just want to explain why I voted yes; it is more gut feeling rather than based on really truly serious data,” said one panel member, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. "The data itself is not strong."
Another panel member, Paul A. Offit, MD, also voted "yes," but with the caveat that “If the goal is to try and protect against the unfortunately-named breakthrough infections of asymptomatic infection... then we're going to be talking about getting frequent boosters, which I don't think is a reasonable strategy for this."
How should one reconcile these statements with the panel's recommendation?
A chaos pendulum has two affixed agents in plain sight: Its motion is unpredictable. COVID-19 is invisible, mutating and distributed amongst nearly 8 billion agents (excluding animals). The idea of predicting or controlling the virus at scale is hard to describe in terms outside the realm of fantasy.
I'm not arguing to abandon hope, but I do believe that this reality is a justification to focus on what can be controlled and to fall back on the fundamentals of the scientific method.
Asking unpopular questions, sharing raw data (and the methods used to analyze it), and invalidating one's own personal beliefs must not be sacrificed at the altar of COVID-19 if good science is needed for us to cooperate and survive. Legislating religion and leading crusades will not save us.
References
Feilden, Tom. “Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers” BBC News, Fed. 22, 2017, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Multiple authors. “Epidemiologic Clues to SARS Origin in China” Emerging Infectious Diseases, June 10, 2004, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3323155/. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Parry, Jane. “Breaches of safety regulations are probable cause of recent SARS outbreak, WHO says” BMJ, May 22, 2004, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416634/. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Multiple authors. “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19” The Lancet, Feb. 19, 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Eban, Katherine. “The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins” Vanity Fair, June 3, 2021, https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Avril, Tom. “WHO team says lab leak of virus ‘extremely unlikely,’ but this Rutgers scientist and others are pushing back” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 30, 2021, https://www.inquirer.com/news/who-covid19-lab-leak-richard-ebright-china-20210330.html. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Inskeep, Steve. “Virologist: WHO Team Found No 'Credible Link' Between Wuhan Labs, COVID-19” NPR, Fe. 16, 2021, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/02/16/968375658/virologist-on-wuhan-trip-seafood-market-not-the-whole-story-in-early-outbreak. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Whittaker, Gary R. “SARS-CoV-2 spike and its adaptable furin cleavage site” The Lancet, Aug. 6, 2021, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00174-9/fulltext. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Multiple authors. “Science Brief: Community Use of Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2” National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases, Dec. 6, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Zweig, David. “The CDC’s Flawed Case for Wearing Masks in School” The Atlantic, Dec. 16, 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/12/mask-guidelines-cdc-walensky/621035/. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Multiple authors. “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures” Emerging Infection Diseases, May 2020, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.
Multiple authors. “FDA advisers endorse Moderna booster shot: Three takeaways” Politico, Oct. 14, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/14/fda-moderna-booster-takeaways-516031. Accessed Dec. 19, 2021.