The Review: Scientists accused of harassment

Plus: A Times reporter says he was deceived. ADVERTISEMENT [The Review Logo]( You can also [read this newsletter on the web](. Or, if you no longer want to receive this newsletter, [unsubscribe](. Donald McNeil Jr., a former New York Times science reporter whose Covid coverage helped the paper earn a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 2021, recently [accused]( some of his sources of having misleadingly minimized the possibility that the virus leaked from a laboratory. (He made those charges in his new book, The Wisdom of Plagues, which was published in January, but media didn’t take much notice until March, when Semafor [summarized]( the accusations.) “I was,” McNeil writes, “the victim of deception in the pandemic’s earliest days.” As McNeil tells it, in February 2020 he asked Kristian G. Andersen, of Scripps Research, and Andrew Rambaut, of the University of Edinburgh, whether there was any truth to rumors that “the U.S. government is trying to seriously investigate the possibility that the nCoV came out of the Wuhan Virus laboratory rather than out of a wet market.” They denied it. What they didn’t mention was that they themselves had suspected a lab origin early on, something the public began to learn in late 2022, as journalists used the Freedom of Information Act to force the NIH to release relevant communications. Revelations were [accelerated]( in July 2023, when House Republicans held a hearing on the subject. “The lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened,” Andersen wrote in an email to a colleague on February 1, 2020, “because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” Drawing on leaked Slack chats, McNeil points out that as of February 6, Andersen and co.'s “suspicions about viral engineering were still very much alive.” But by February 16, Andersen had become lead author of “[The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2]( published in Nature. “Our analyses,” he and his coauthors wrote, “clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” At the time, that was taken to more or less settle the question, unless you were a conspiracy nut. Would it have seemed so compelling if the scientists had been forthcoming with reporters like McNeil about their initial concerns back in 2020? Would the public have accepted the volte-face between February 1 and February 16 as the outcome of a disinterested scientific process? Was it disinterested? On February 2, Rambaut wrote to Andersen about “the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release.” Andersen responded: “I hate when politics is injected into science — but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstances.” SPONSOR CONTENT | Queen's University Belfast [Transforming Hospital Care through Data Insights]( NEWSLETTER [Sign Up for the Teaching Newsletter]( Find insights to improve teaching and learning across your campus. Delivered on Thursdays. To read this newsletter as soon as it sends, [sign up]( to receive it in your email inbox. Polling suggests that the public no longer believes that “Proximal Origin” was disinterested; as of last year, 64 percent of Americans [favor]( a laboratory origin. Scientific truth is not made by plebiscite, of course. But authority is a different matter, and so is credibility. To their critics, the mere appearance that Andersen et al. were motivated by political rather than scientific concerns — an appearance they have done much to promote — tarnishes the scientific enterprise, and has perhaps had a hand in the much-lamented [declining]( faith in expert classes. For their part, Andersen and Rambaut have recently joined 10 other scientists in filing a formal [complaint]( against two Rutgers biologists, Richard Ebright and Bryce Nickels, both prominent supporters of a laboratory origin for Covid. The complaint alleges that the two “continuously and repeatedly engage in public behavior that not only disrespects the values of the scientific enterprise, but also poses a direct threat to the well-being and safety of us and our colleagues in the scientific community.” They append four samples, all from Twitter, meant to substantiate the charge that Ebright’s and Nickels’s intemperate criticisms have made other scientists unsafe. In one, for instance, Nickels tweets about a planned World Vaccine Congress event this way: “Don’t miss your chance to meet Peter Daszak, author of the grant many consider the ‘Blueprint’ for Sars-CoV2!” Ebright accuses Andersen and his colleagues of “fraud,” “grift,” and the like. It will be interesting to see whether Rutgers decides that such tweets are beyond the pale of academic freedom. It is a shame, both for science itself and for science’s reputation with the public, that the debate between Ebright and Nickels on the one hand and Andersen and Rambaut on the other has taken this degraded form. The public deserves better from the experts who are supposed to serve it. ADVERTISEMENT SUBSCRIBE TO THE CHRONICLE Enjoying the newsletter? [Subscribe today]( for unlimited access to essential news, analysis, and advice. The Latest THE REVIEW | ROUNDTABLE [Judith Butler on Gender and Freedom in a Time of Fascism]( By Adrian Daub [STORY IMAGE]( Five scholars discuss the philosopher’s new book. ADVERTISEMENT THE REVIEW | OPINION [How to Boost Community-College Transfers]( By Tatiana Velasco [STORY IMAGE]( Most of the students aim to get a bachelor’s degree. Few earn one. Recommended - “There is no doubting her capacities as a scholar: an erudition both broad and deep has been distilled into this book.” That’s Rob Lucas in the New Left Review [writing about]( Lorraine Daston’s career and her most recent book, Rules. - “VALIS issued cryptic theological messages but also offered Dick practical advice on how to deal with his son Christopher’s hernia.” In Lingua Franca, Jeet Heer on the [paranoid personal fantasies]( of Philip K. Dick, who thought, among other things, that Fredric Jameson was part of a plot to kidnap him. (From 2001.) - “The strangest aspect of Moyn’s account is the openly contradictory way he treats his own thesis.” In the London Review of Books, Stephen Holmes offers a [skeptical review]( of Samuel Moyn’s most recent book, Liberalism Against Itself. And if you missed it before, check out the Chronicle’s [roundtable]( on Moyn’s book. - “Those of us who have appointed ourselves stewards of discourse have spent a great deal of energy trying to build some consensus, however imaginary and manufactured, but we are losing.” In The New Yorker, Jay Caspian Kang has a [new weekly column]( on politics and media. The inaugural essay turns to Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death to ask about “the ideology of the internet.” Write to me at len.gutkin@chronicle.com. Yours, Len Gutkin SPONSOR CONTENT | Iowa State University [A Catalyst for Success]( Discover how Iowa State empowers students and visionaries alike to bring their entrepreneurial dreams to life, igniting a ripple effect of innovation. FROM THE CHRONICLE STORE [Fostering Students' Free Expression - Buy Now]( [Higher Education in 2035]( Higher education is facing an array of challenges: economic headwinds, political pressures, and shifting demographics. [Order your copy]( to help your institution prepare for what’s ahead, and discover how the sector will evolve in the coming decade. JOB OPPORTUNITIES [Search jobs on The Chronicle job board]( [Find Your Next Role Today]( Whether you are actively or passively searching for your next career opportunity, The Chronicle is here to support you throughout your job search. Get started now by [exploring 30,000+ openings]( or [signing up for job alerts](. NEWSLETTER FEEDBACK [Please let us know what you thought of today's newsletter in this three-question survey](. This newsletter was sent to {EMAIL}. [Read this newsletter on the web](. [Manage]( your newsletter preferences, [stop receiving]( this email, or [view]( our privacy policy. © 2024 [The Chronicle of Higher Education]( 1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037