www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZdNyKE5yC4YjXGzfG/a-back-of-the-envelope-calculation-on-...
3 corrections found
Warnings were given in Nature specifically mentioning the WIV/Zhengli Shi group and no other group involved with coronaviruses
The linked Nature warning article did not single out only the WIV/Zhengli Shi group. In the accessible text of that Nature News article, Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak are also explicitly named, and the article does not uniquely identify WIV/Shi alone.
Full reasoning
The linked 2015 Nature News article is about a chimeric coronavirus study, but it does not exclusively name the WIV/Zhengli Shi group.
In a syndicated copy of the same Nature News piece, the article explicitly says the study was allowed to proceed according to Ralph Baric of UNC, identifies Baric as a co-author of the study, and later quotes Peter Daszak by name as well. It also quotes Simon Wain-Hobson and Richard Ebright. In other words, the warning was not about only the WIV/Shi group and no other coronavirus group.
In fact, the accessible text does not even uniquely center WIV/Shi: it names Baric and Daszak directly and discusses the study as a broader collaboration and debate over gain-of-function coronavirus work. So the post overstates the specificity of the warning article.
2 sources
- Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research | BioEd Online
"The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began ... says Ralph Baric ... a co-author of the study." Later: "But Baric and others say the research did have benefits ... says Peter Daszak."
- Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research | Nature
Nature article linked in the post: "Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research" (published 12 November 2015).
the only year that the US has greenlit dangerous GoF work
2017 was not the only year the U.S. approved or funded gain-of-function work. Official NIH material says NIH had already funded such studies before the 2014 pause, and the 2015 SHC014 coronavirus study was allowed to proceed during the moratorium review.
Full reasoning
This claim is contradicted by both NIH and contemporaneous reporting.
- In NIH's October 16, 2014 statement announcing the funding pause, the agency said "NIH has funded such studies" and explained that the 2014 action was a pause on new funding. That means the U.S. had already been greenlighting/funding this category of work before 2017.
- The 2015 Nature News article about the SHC014 chimeric coronavirus study states that the study was already under way before the U.S. moratorium began, and that NIH allowed it to proceed while it was under review.
So 2017 was not uniquely "the only year" in which the U.S. greenlit dangerous gain-of-function research; there were funded or permitted examples before then.
2 sources
- Statement on Funding Pause on Certain Types of Gain-of-Function Research | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
"NIH has funded such studies ... During this deliberative process, U.S. government agencies will institute a pause on the funding of any new studies involving these experiments."
- Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research | BioEd Online
"The latest study was already under way before the US moratorium began, and the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) allowed it to proceed while it was under review by the agency."
0.2⁴ = 1.6%
This arithmetic is off by a factor of 10. 0.2^4 equals 0.0016, which is 0.16%, not 1.6%.
Full reasoning
This is a straightforward math error.
[
0.2^4 = 0.2 \times 0.2 \times 0.2 \times 0.2 = 0.0016
]
Converting 0.0016 to a percentage gives:
[
0.0016 \times 100 = 0.16%
]
So the post's value of 1.6% is ten times too large. (By comparison, the preceding approximation 0.5^4 = 6% is a reasonable rounding of 6.25%, but 0.2^4 = 1.6% is not.)
2 sources
- Evaluate (0.2)^4 | Mathway
Search result snippet: "(0.2)^4 ... 0.0016".
- Elementary Algebra ... Page 75: 18 | GradeSaver
"(0.2)^4=(0.2)(0.2)(0.2)(0.2)=0.0016".