The COVID‐19 pandemic is responsible for millions of deaths worldwide yet its origin remains unclear. Two potential scenarios of how infection of humans initially occurred include zoonotic transfer from wild animals and a leak of the pathogen from a research laboratory. The Wuhan wet markets where wild animals are sold represent a strong scenario for zoonotic transfer. However, isolation of SARS‐CoV‐2 or its immediate predecessor from wild animals in their natural environment has yet to be documented. Due to (...) incomplete evidence for a zoonotic origin, a laboratory origin is plausible. The Wuhan Institute of Virology is at the epicenter of the pandemic and their work has included manipulation of wild‐type coronavirus to enable infection of human cells. Although stronger evidence supports the zoonotic transfer, inconclusive reports maintain the laboratory leak hypothesis alive. It is imperative to reach a factual conclusion to prevent future pandemics. (shrink)

Tyshkovskiy and Panchin have recently published a commentary on our paper in which they outline several “points of disagreement with the Segreto/Deigin hypothesis.” As our paper is titled “The genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 does not rule out a laboratory origin,” points of disagreement should provide evidence that rules out a laboratory origin. However, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin provide no such evidence and instead attempt to criticize our arguments that highlight aspects of SARS‐CoV‐2 that could be consistent with the lab (...) leak hypothesis. Strikingly, Tyshkovskiy and Panchin's main point of criticism is based on a false premise that we have claimed RaTG13 to be a direct progenitor of SARS‐CoV‐2, and their other points of criticism are either not valid, based on flawed mathematical analysis, or are unrelated to our hypotheses. Thus, the genetic structure of SARS‐CoV‐2 remains consistent with both natural or laboratory origin, which means that both the zoonotic and the lab leak hypothesis need to be investigated equally thoroughly. (shrink)

The uncertainties relating to the COVID-19 pandemic continue to pose extraordinary challenges to policymakers worldwide. The recent lifting of restrictions in China raised the spectre of another wave of infections beyond its borders, which has thankfully not occurred, so far. Now, three years after the pandemic emerged, policy assumptions and responses are being re-evaluated—from whether the virus emerged as a laboratory leak, to whether vaccines have efficacy, to whether Sweden’s laissez-faire approach was superior to other countries’ ambitious interventions. (...) We examine India’s experience with COVID-19—impressionistically—to draw larger lessons for policymakers. India’s responses were a mix of hits and misses. Some measures helped contain the pandemic and assisted those in need. Other measures seemed performative—geared towards garnering glory on the global stage. Together, they throw light on the challenges of coping with a crisis in real time. (shrink)

Intense public interest in scientific claims about COVID-19, concerning its origins, modes of spread, evolution, and preventive and therapeutic strategies, has focused attention on the values to which scientists are assumed to be committed and the relationship between science and other public discourses. A much discussed claim, which has stimulated several inquiries and generated far-reaching political and economic consequences, has been that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then, either inadvertently or otherwise, released to the (...) public by a laboratory worker. This has been pursued despite a clear refutation, through comprehensive genomic analysis, of the hypothesis that the virus was deliberately engineered and the failure of detailed investigations to identify any evidence in support of a laboratory leak. At the same time a substantial, established body of knowledge about the many factors underlying the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases has been largely ignored—including climate change and other mechanisms of environmental destruction, tourism, patterns of trade, and cultural influences. The existence and conduct of these debates have raised questions about the vulnerability of science to manipulation for political purposes. Scientific discourses are vulnerable because: (i) claims can be made with no more than probabilistic force; (ii) alleged “facts” are always subject to interpretation, which depends on social, ethical, and epistemological assumptions; and (iii) science and scientists are not inherently committed to any single set of values and historically have served diverse, and sometimes perverse, social and political interests. In the face of this complexity, the COVID-19 experience highlights the need for processes of ethical scrutiny of the scientific enterprise and its strategic deployment. To ensure reliability of truth claims and protection from corrupting influences robust ethical discourses are required that are independent of, and at times even contrary to, those of science itself. (shrink)

Foreword, by A. P. Brogan.--Retrospective introduction, by C. D. Leake.--Ethicogenesis, by C. D. Leake.--A philosopher's reply to a scientist's ethic, by P. Romanell.--A scientific versus a metaphysical approach to ethics, by C. D. Leake.--A naturalistic versus a positivistic approach to ethics, by P. Romanell.--A naturalistic logic with metaphysics, by P. Romanell.--Science implies freedom, by C. D. Leake.

This paper explores anti-natalism and attitudes towards environmental preservation. Anti-natalisms of a certain kind, what I call “compassion-based anti-natalisms”, adhere to the principle of minimising suffering, and this goes hand-in-hand with the common belief that protecting the environment from destruction is the right thing to do. However, I argue that environmental preservation is, in fact, antithetical to the anti-natalist’s aims. This is because environmental preservation is, as I argue, primarily for future generations and has, therefore, pro-natalist attachments: environmental preservation promotes (...) and enables future generations. As a result, environmental preservation conflicts with three of the anti-natalist’s fundamental values: the goal of extinction, an overall reduction in suffering, and adherence to a duty of non-procreation. Because of this, I discuss two possible attitudes the anti-natalist might take towards environmental preservation: Destruction and Apathy. Destruction involves the active degradation and destruction of the environment to bring about extinction as soon as possible. Apathy is to be “hands-off” towards preservation and degrade the environment more slowly. I state that Apathy is the most suitable attitude for the anti-natalist to take towards the environment because it ascertains a sensible balance within the anti-natalist’s values and does not introduce new, morally objectionable outcomes. Finally, I discuss some practical limitations to Apathy and how the anti-natalist might best act in the context of the real world. I conclude that anti-natalists might have to compromise on their values and, paradoxically, support environmental preservation. (shrink)

1. The ethics -- 2. The logics -- 3. The esthetics.