In the first years of the pandemic any suggestion that the Covid-19 virus may have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan was dismissed as the stuff of xenophobic cranks. Instead the mainstream consensus – that it first emerged from bat-to-human transmission – was held up like gospel truth. And the lab-leak hypothesis was given the death knell moniker: Disinformation.
The Lancet, an influential medical journal, “strongly condemned” theories “suggestion that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin.” In February 2021 the New York Times listed “the baseless theory that Covid-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab” as among the “hoaxes, lies, and collective delusions” newly embraced by the American public. The Associated Press declared the so-called conspiracy “debunked.”
They may all be a little red-faced now. Newly released intelligence has led the United States energy department to conclude (with “low confidence”) that an accidental lab leak was the most probable source of the initial outbreak. Additionally, the FBI have determined “with moderate confidence” that the virus emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
None of this is definitive and a high level of uncertainty remains. Views on the virus’s provenance still vary wildly and it is probable that we do not have enough information to issue any final judgment now. But we ought to be grateful that a healthy level of inquiry has been reinjected into the conversation rather than brushed off as needless heresy.
[ Did Covid leak from a Wuhan lab? Irish scientists weigh it upOpens in new window ]
Perhaps those who confidently dismissed the lab-leak hypothesis as conspiratorial guff with limited evidence ought to do a bit of soul-searching. Because all knowledge should be treated as fast moving, liable to rapid and unpredictable change. Evidence can emerge from unlikely places and reshape the contours of the entire debate. The volte-face on the lab-leak hypothesis prove that.
Instead, at the outset of the pandemic, a total lack of intellectual humility took over. We made our minds up, stuck to the line, and chastised dissenters as anti-science and perhaps, even, Sinophobic. This is bad practice at any moment in time, amid a deathly pandemic it is completely irresponsible.
It isn’t a good look to make absolute judgments about the veracity of information – and labelling all sceptics as conspiracy theorists in the process
The implications are twofold. Understanding the source of the pandemic was key to informing and co-ordinating the global response. Moreover, scrutiny over the virus’s origins may help prevent a repeat in the future. Shutting down the line of inquiry with premature accusations of “disinformation” prevents our ability to do of those things.
It also serves to hasten the slow decline of public trust in the media. If it is the role of medical journals and disinformation correspondents to strengthen the relationship between the public and the traditional media then this particular episode was a rather good attempt at misunderstanding the brief. It isn’t a good look to make absolute judgments about the veracity of information – and labelling all sceptics as conspiracy theorists in the process – to then row back on the erroneous claims.
It is clear how it happened. Like masks and vaccines and lockdowns, the lab leak became swept up in the political proxy war of the pandemic. Wearing a mask, for example, was not just an attempt to mitigate the spread of the virus but also a means of signalling ideological affiliations. In this case – sensible, liberal, cautious.
No matter Trump’s intentions – and we can be confident they were not holy – it was wrong to dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis on account of its biggest advocate
Donald Trump was quick to notice how politically advantageous it would be to use the pandemic to whip up anti-Chinese sentiment, referring to Covid as the China Virus and leaning hard into the idea that it was confected in a distant, malign, laboratory in Wuhan. Many of his allies followed suit. Meanwhile, the preferred “zoonotic transmission” narrative became the calling card for those willing to distance themselves from Trump’s blatant forays into basic xenophobia.
But no matter Trump’s intentions – and we can be confident they were not holy – it was wrong to dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis on account of its biggest advocate. But it was tempting: by undermining the credibility of his theory we could assert ourselves as his ideological opponent. And worse, we could do so under the guise of dispassionate, neutral observation.
Unfortunately this was naked partisanship. And – it needn’t be said – rather “anti-science” to disregard a theory because it didn’t align with our values or preconceptions. But the pandemic revealed our generalised capacity for being anti-scientific . Science is not a homogenous, unchanging entity free from value judgment – but rather it is constantly adapting to new inputs. Accepting and even encouraging dissent is important to accessing as much of the scientific truth as possible.
This is a cautionary tale about how proper inquiry and benign scepticism can be sublimated to serve partisan aims. Donald Trump does it all the time. His opponents did it by prematurely labelling the lab-leak hypothesis as malicious disinformation. That this happens on all points of the political spectrum does not mean it can ever be excused, especially in a matter as consequential as global health.
The lab-leak hypothesis may be proven wrong. We should keep our minds open to all reasonable possibilities. But this is a problem that extends far beyond the reaches of the coronavirus. What does it say about our desire for open inquiry if it can be subordinated at the altar of tribalism?