Loading…
An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2
[...]this argument could literally be reversed. [...]the absence of traces of reverse-engineering systems does not preclude genome editing, which is performed with so-called seamless techniques.6,7 Finally, the absence of a previously known backbone is not a proof, since researchers can work for sev...
Saved in:
Published in: | The Lancet (British edition) 2021-10, Vol.398 (10309), p.1402-1404 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | [...]this argument could literally be reversed. [...]the absence of traces of reverse-engineering systems does not preclude genome editing, which is performed with so-called seamless techniques.6,7 Finally, the absence of a previously known backbone is not a proof, since researchers can work for several years on viruses before publishing their full genome (this was the case for RaTG13, the closest known virus, which was collected in 2013 and published in 2020).8 Based on these indirect and questionable arguments, the authors conclude in favour of a natural proximal origin. Two questions need to be addressed: virus evolution and introduction into the human population. Since July, 2020, several peer-reviewed scientific papers have discussed the likelihood of a research-related origin of the virus. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0140-6736 1474-547X |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02019-5 |