Talk:Gain-of-function research

Origins of COVID-19: Current consensus

1. There is no consensus on whether the lab leak theory is a "conspiracy theory" or a "minority scientific viewpoint". (RfC, February 2021)
2. There is consensus against defining "disease and pandemic origins" (broadly speaking) as a form of biomedical information for the purpose of WP:MEDRS. However, information that already fits into biomedical information remains classified as such, even if it relates to disease and pandemic origins (e.g. genome sequences, symptom descriptions, phylogenetic trees). (RfC, May 2021)
3. In multiple prior non-RFC discussions about manuscripts authored by Rossana Segreto and/or Yuri Deigin, editors have found the sources to be unreliable. Specifically, editors were not convinced by the credentials of the authors, and concerns were raised with the editorial oversight of the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series. (Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Jan 2021, Feb 2021, June 2021, ...)
4. The consensus of scientists is that SARS-CoV-2 is likely of zoonotic origin. (January 2021, May 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, WP:NOLABLEAK (frequently cited in discussions))
5. The March 2021 WHO report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 should be referred to as the "WHO-convened report" or "WHO-convened study" on first usage in article prose, and may be abbreviated as "WHO report" or "WHO study" thereafter. (RfC, June 2021)
6. The "manufactured bioweapon" idea should be described as a "conspiracy theory" in wiki-voice. (January 2021, February 2021, May 2021, May 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, June 2021, July 2021, July 2021, July 2021, August 2021)
7. The scientific consensus (and the Frutos et al. sources ([1][2]) which support it), which dismisses the lab leak, should not be described as "based in part on Shi [Zhengli]'s emailed answers." (RfC, December 2021)
8. The American FBI and Department of Energy finding that a lab leak was likely should not be mentioned in the lead of COVID-19 lab leak theory, because it is WP:UNDUE. (RFC, October 2023)
9. The article COVID-19 lab leak theory may not go through the requested moves process between 4 March 2024 and 3 March 2025. (RM, March 2024)

Which pages use this template?

Last updated (diff) on 30 November 2024 by Shibbolethink (t · c)

PLOS article on NIH-funded GOF at Wuhan

Here's the article that Rand Paul showed Fauci in his Congressional testimony, to support his claim that the US funded gain of function research at Wuhan:

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

Hu B, Zeng L-P, Yang X-L, Ge X-Y, Zhang W, Li B, et al.

Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus.

PLoS Pathog 13(11): e1006698.

November 30, 2017

Doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

and here's a discussion of the paper arguing that Rand Paul was wrong, by Daniel Wilson, PhD, who runs a website devoted to correcting COVID-19 misinformation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGaqSoyv8Y0

Fauci did not fund gain of function research in China

--Nbauman (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 Gain-of-Function research updates

NIH deputy director Richard Tabak recently confirmed in congressional testimony that the NIH did fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab as reported by Forbes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxGN8el7MA4&ab_channel=ForbesBreakingNews (relevant timestamp at 45:01)

Congresswoman Lesko: "Dr. Tabak, did NIH fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth?"

Dr. Richard Tabak: "It depends on your definition of gain-of function research. If you're speaking about the generic term, yes we did, because- but this is research, the generic term goes on in many many labs around the country, it is not regulated, and the reason it is not regulated is because it poses no harm or threat to anybody.

This is a substantial department from what is written in this article and what was the general consensus prior to this hearing. As is stated in direct quotes in this article, the previous consensus was there was absolutely 0 NIH-funded gain-of-function research at the WIH.

"the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research [conducted at] the Wuhan Institute of Virology" (Quoting from this article, which is quoting Dr. Anthony Fauci)

Now, the stated position of the NIH is that there was NIH-funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but was only of a "generic form" of gain of function research. This is of course a substantial departure from previous statements made, unless Tabak has severely misspoke here, which I don't think has happened. As such I'm unsure how to present the current position of the NIH without substantively contradicting what was said before.

I'll make an edit adding the most recent evidence and testimony, but am happy to discuss it further. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Covid section needs updating

https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/ 161.29.81.50 (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Covid Section Update reverted

My most recent edit has been reverted, seemingly for no reason.

I believe it is formatted correctly. It's representing the US Congress's most recent findings on the issue, a 500 page report after a 2 year house investigation, and I believe I've properly cited each one of the findings. Ostensibly it represents the most recent and complete analysis of the incidents by the most authoritative source on the issue, sans the NIH itself. It took tremendous time to parse through and I don't particularly appreciate it being removed without even a stated reason.

Reading some comments on other pages it seems people say this isn't a reliable source? This seems a bit silly as we use this exact committee for other sources throughout wikipedia, without any controversy. Additionally this exact study appears in the article about the committee itself. I think the challenges to the legitimacy of a report conducted by The US government itself against its own interest are facially void of any merit. I also think such a precedent would require nearly half of all US governmental articles on wikipedia to be deleted or rewritten.

As such I'm reverting the edit back to what I had posted. Feel free to disagree.

Edit, my apologies, it seems someone reverted my edit because it was "fringe." I don't know what definition of "fringe" you are using here, but it usually doesn't mean "The view adopted by the legislative body of the United States after 2 years of investigation." BabbleOnto (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I stumbled across this independently and believe it's not appropriate. (I then looked in the history and saw it was already reverted by another editor.)

Wikipedia is a teritary source and primarily summarises secondary sources, which critically analyse primary sourced content, and are appropriate for the given context. The text you added is wholly sourced to a primary source, which I'd argue is also biased. It is the report of House Republicans, in a time when US politics is incredibly partisan, especially around the issue of the origins of COVID-19 and closely related topics. That is really just the cherry on top, of course. I think considering that primary sources is being used for exceptional content, including controversial statements regarding living persons, is enough to warrant removal of that content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm facially skeptic of anyone who, sua sponte, feels the need to clarify that they are independent.

The text you added is wholly sourced to a primary source, which I'd argue is also biased.

Would you be satisfied if I also included secondary reporting on this?

including controversial statements regarding living persons, is enough to warrant removal of that content

Perhaps the Dr. Fauci quote is irrelevant to the subject of this article, in retrospect. But I do believe the rest of the quotes are, given the context of the rest of the article. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what 'independent' means in isolation. I was saying that I was reading the article for unrelated reasons, saw that paragraph, felt it was inappropriate, then realised it was under dispute. (as opposed to finding this discussion on talk first, then opining.)

Would you be satisfied if I also included secondary reporting on this? One purpose of secondary sourcing is to place primary sourcing in context. As I said in [3], you did provide secondary sourcing, but that secondary sourcing (I looked at the Science source you provided, which seemed the strongest and was the first in your list) seems to not hold this 'news' in great prominence. Instead, it suggests that this is a partisan and controversial report, whose contents are against the prevailing scientific viewpoint. Some of the otherwise-provable factual contents also seem to be disputed (eg: the DOJ investigation stuff). Further, it is explicitly not a bipartisan report. At best, that means these claims should be attributed to the authors and not stated in wikivoice (which I acknowledge your edit did), but really it means the claims are undue for inclusion and we need better sources to be including that content. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I once again find it unlikely that you came across this article "independently" but then cite to other conversations I was having on different articles on the same topics. That's at least evidence that you did not come upon this article independently, but after being led here by other topics in dispute. But, moving on:

Instead, it suggests that this is a partisan and controversial report

Some sources characterize it as such, others do not.

Some of the otherwise-provable factual contents also seem to be disputed

Don't see why this is relevant, secondary sources disputing parts of the primary sources do not render either unusable.

Further, it is explicitly not a bipartisan report.

It explicitly is a bipartisan source. Regardless if all members agree with every individual point, the report itself explicitly says which points were undisputed by either side and which points were contested.

we need better sources to be including that content.

What better source for the house report could possibly exist than the house report itself? BabbleOnto (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I've modified the change and added additional secondary sources. There's been no further discussion on the issue, and I've edited the change in respond to the challenges and pursuant to the discussion of the change. Yet still the edit is being reverted by one activist editor without citing a reason or attempting to defend their revert any further, aside from just calling it "Fringe" and failing to explain any further or why it is actually fringe. I've refuted most of the challenges, and made appropriate changes to the edit in the places where I feel the criticism was valid.

Please do not edit war. If you feel my edit is improper then please provide a reason why. Otherwise just reverting my edits as soon as I make them because you don't like them is childish. BabbleOnto (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is not a WP:COATRACK for lab leak conspiracy theories. Bon courage (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Reports by the US legislature are not conspiracy theories. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet still the edit is being reverted by one activist editor without citing a reason or attempting to defend their revert any further, aside from just calling it "Fringe" and failing to explain any further or why it is actually fringe. As well as Bon courage, I also disagree with that edit. I just don't particularly want to discuss this endlessly with you as it's clear we fundamentally disagree here on what is appropriate sourcing, and I've no interest in getting 'the last word' or continuing until one editor burns out. That doesn't mean I don't still disagree with the edit. WP:Dispute resolution processes could be pursued, I'll post on a few noticeboards.

I will reply to one bit: What better source for the house report could possibly exist than the house report itself? I mean a better source for the allegations that gain-of-function research in a Chinese lab might've seriously been the origin of COVID-19. (If it's just that there's a political circus around it, rather than serious plausibility, then COVID-19 lab leak theory is a better article for the political stuff.)

Top sources clearly view this report unfavourably in context, largely partisan in production, and bringing nothing new to the table. That means it is not a suitable source for, well, largely anything. Your sources (MSN, The Hill) are quite poor. Here are some good sources that see it unfavourably: The BMJ, Science, and quite thoroughly Ars Technica (which I'd not normally put in the same bracket as the former sources, but the author of this article is clearly qualified in the area). Accordingly, I'm opposed to anything more than a sentence or two mention at best, as that would be undue weight. Where a sentence or two is included, it should really be on the basis of how secondary sources view the report in context, which is unfavourably. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Top sources clearly view this report unfavourably in context, largely partisan in production, and bringing nothing new to the table.

SOME sources view this report unfavorably. Others don't. Just referring to your own sources as "The top sources," isn't a serious argument. I've included criticisms and counterpoints to the article from various sources.

That means it is not a suitable source for, well, largely anything.

What is included in a wikipedia article is not "Only what my preferred sources view favorably."

Constant mentions of WP:UNDUE don't seem to have actually read it. I'll remind you of the text:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

I have yet to see a serious contention that the US government is not a significant viewpoint or that the US House of Representatives is not a reliable source, seeing as the US House of Representative Reports have been used as sources in dozens of other articles. Arguments that the US's opinion on anything is irrelevant is also facetious when the literal preceding paragraph before my edit, quite ironically, is just testimony from a US senate hearing, which is nearly identical to the evidence of the report, yet no one has a problem with the previous paragraph's inclusion.

The article is about "Gain-of-function research." The section is the Covid-19 Pandemic. The US House released a report on its findings on gain-of-function research during the covid-19 pandeimc How anyone has justified to themselves that either a.) The US House's findings on a matter are not significant or b.) The US house of representatives is a fringe organization dedicated to purporting conspiracy theories, is beyond me. I legitimately have seen no arguments for either of these except for people saying "The current political party in the majority is not the party I like." BabbleOnto (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• The US Congress's committee report is a hyper-partisan pile of dog shit that is WP:FRINGE as fuck. Per WP:UNDUE it should not be covered at all. TarnishedPath^talk 10:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  The US Congress's committee report is a hyper-partisan pile of dog shit that is WP:FRINGE as fuck.

  How can the parts of the report that were unanimous amongst a bi-partisan committee be "hyper-partisan?" How can resolutions and findings which were independently and unanimously approved by EACH of the 7 Republicans and 6 Democrats be "hyper-partisan." Even if you disagree with the majority's findings, labelling the UNANIMOUS findings "hyper-partisan" is just fundamentally wrong. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, nah. Just because there's a bunch of republicans and democrats together doesn't mean squat. When they arrive at a different conclusion than the vast majority of experts in the field then it's WP:UNDUE. TarnishedPath^talk 03:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Once again, how is the opinion of the US House on its own funding not a "Significant viewpoint" and therefore could be included? Seeing as the entire subsection is regarding the US's purported funding of gain-of-function research. This is almost a textbook case for inclusion under WP:UNDUE. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've already described how it is UNDUE as have others. TarnishedPath^talk 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  You just keep repeating that "They disagree with the majority, therefore it can't be included." Which is not what WP:UNDUE says. Read the actual rule. BabbleOnto (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  jps is correct. Fringe claims from an unreliable/ignorant source and useless for Wikipedia. If decent secondary sourcing appear they may be useful, but probably more for the whackiness of US politics than for any actual knowledge about GoF research, which is meant to be what that article is about. Bon courage (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  The US Federal Government is not an unreliable source on US Federal funding. This statement should be axiomatic, I have no idea how you're having so much trouble with it. That statement is practically X = X in logical terms. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  A bunch of politicians can publish what they want. Frankly I doubt they even understand what GoF research is, and even if this were true how is it helpful to Wikipedia that a govt. funds virology research? Surely all responsible govts fund it? What does this tell us about the topic of the article? The answer is nothing.- this is merely yet another attempt to insert moronic "lab leak" talking points into Wikipedia. I'm assuming you're not anxious to insert Chinese political publications too ... Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  how is it helpful to Wikipedia that a govt. funds virology research? Surely all responsible govts fund it? What does this tell us about the topic of the article?

  Well the article itself, prior to any of my edits, mentioned it. So clearly someone else thought it was important enough to include. If you want to remove the whole section as irrelevant I suppose that's an option.

  And I'm afraid you're spreading "fringe theories" if you say that the US probably funds gain of function research. The current article asserts, or at least implies, that it the US does not fund gain-of-function research.

  See the following excerpts:

  NIH funding to the EcoHealth Alliance and later sub-contracted to the Wuhan Institute of Virology was not to support gain-of-function experiments, but instead to enable the collection of bat samples in the wild. (Emphasis added)

  Fauci responded "with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect...the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research [conducted at] the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (Emphasis added)

  There are no current sources which represent the fact that we now know, or at least the US House has presented evidence to strongly suggest, that this isn't true. Circumstantially, Ecohealth has been debarred from receiving federal funds. (Oops, I'm citing to the US DHHS, hope they haven't been deemed a fringe source yet). BabbleOnto (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  This s WP:NOTAFORUM yet this irrelevance continues. If there's a reliable source actually on "gain of function research" then that could be useful. Politicals screeds ain't that. End of story. The idea that SARS-CoV-2 came from GoF research is described by reliable sources as a conspiracy theory, as covered in the Lab Leak article. Bon courage (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pointing out how two of the article's claims are now obsolete/contradicted by most mainstream sources. How is this WP:NOTAFORUM.

  Any source is going to inevitably cite back to the US government, because in the real world that's the authoritative source for federal issues. As proven here, I cannot cite to the government, or use any source which cites to a branch of the government.

  For example, the statement that Ecohealth did not support gain-of-function experiments. This is now pretty well to be accepted as false, consider the following excerpt from that source (perenially-approved) which is said so lackadaisical you wouldn't think it would get you edit banned for suggesting it here:

  For years now, EcoHealth has generated immense controversy for its use of federal grant money to support gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab.

  But how do I cite this? I can't cite to the actual report by the DHHS which made this finding, as evidenced by the immense amount of controversy around primary sourcing a branch of the US federal government. I can't cite to any secondary sources which talk about this because the DHHS is just as partisan as Congress, if not more so; it's executive officers being partisan appointees and confirmed in the "fringe conspiratorial" Congress.

  With the current rules laid out I think parts of this article cannot be updated without applying some kind of double standard. I have no idea how to edit even the unquestionably wrong parts of this article. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

All you have to do is wait until high-quality academic WP:SECONDARY sources suitable for citing about medical issues cover this; if the gut feelings and speculation you articulated above are correct, they will eventually shift their coverage to agree with you. Without that, though, you have to accept that no matter how fervently you believe the article is false, the WP:BESTSOURCES don't agree yet; and they're what it's going to reflect. --Aquillion (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

All you have to do is wait until high-quality academic WP:SECONDARY sources suitable for citing about medical issues cover this

Whether or not Ecohealth conducted gain-of-function research in China in 2023 is not a "medical issue." No medical journal is going to cover that issue because that's not a medical question.

Without that, though, you have to accept that no matter how fervently you believe the article is false, the WP:BESTSOURCES don't agree yet

I have literally cited to a reputable, perennially approved source, which backs up my claim. I don't think you're even reading these discussion before you comment on them. BabbleOnto (talk) 06:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As a scientific topic article, practically all sources used in it should preferably be scientific or academic sources (or, at minimum, news sources reporting on scientific studies and research). US government sources would only be reliable if they were from scientific departments, such as the CDC or FDA. This source is definitely not that, so it isn't an appropriate source to use in the article. Especially when it is making extreme scientific claims without actual scientific evidence backing said claims. (And if the scientific evidence existed, we'd reference that directly and not this source.) Silverseren^C 03:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The claim presented by the report, that is, whether or not the US funded gain-of-function research in China, is not scientific. While gain-of-function research in general is scientific, that specific question is not. It's logistical, it's budgetary, it's something completely within the US government's expertise. Whether or not the US funded gain-of-function research in China is absolutely within the US Government's expertise. BabbleOnto (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

A government report would at best only be a WP:PRIMARY source for that claim; obviously using it in this context carries WP:SYNTH / WP:OR implications (ie. why is that claim relevant?) If it is relevant as you claim, then secondary academic sources will eventually cover it in-depth. Otherwise you should probably WP:DROPTHESTICK; no matter what, we absolutely cannot cite the government report directly on this. --Aquillion (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Kindly read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, just designating a source primary doesn't mean it can't be used.

Why would and "Secondary Academic source" be needed for a question which is not academic and is not scientific. Why are secondary sources not valid for this claim that, and I repeat for a third time because every time I don't mention it you just assert that it is, is not scientific in nature.

If your problem is the fact that is primary, which again is not actually a bar to a source inclusion, but whatever, I'm happy to use the litany of perennially approved and reliable secondary sources. I don't understand your need to add "academic" as a qualifier. BabbleOnto (talk) 07:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The question of what is gain-of-function is obviously scientific. We can see from the sources already in the article that it is contested, which means we need high-quality secondary sources by experts with medical expertise to resolve that conclusion, not primary sources to people who are a party to that dispute. And your framing implicitly pushes a conclusion, which would be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR on top of that and strictly requires a secondary source to perform the necessary interpretation and analysis. In short, your proposals are unworkable and that fact is extremely straightforward (hence why you have gotten such a unanimous answer telling you that.) Looking at this discussion, it is overwhelmingly against your proposed addition, so I'd suggest you either WP:DROPTHESTICK or, if you're absolutely certain a larger consensus will support you, start an RFC. There's not much point in you repeating the same arguments over and over when so many people have explained to you in-depth why you've failed to make your case. --Aquillion (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)