Within the article, it discusses how the origin of Sars-CoV-2 was likely from a natural origin, such as a virus being transmitted from bats to humans in some form. However, some around the globe believed that instead, this virus was possibly manufactured in a lab and could’ve leaked or spilled from animals to humans in a farm or market setting.
One of the objectives of this article was to disprove these rumors and scenarios that had been conjured and illustrate a scientific backing of why SARS-CoV-2 likely originated. When discussing scientists and significant changes of heart, I think it is likely at times to have significant changes of heart as new evidence and data can greatly alter one’s conclusions or theories when trying to uncover a scientific truth. In this instance, the group’s work was meant to disprove the lab theory. As some major virologists had been wary about SARS-CoV-2’s origin, there was concern about if it had been engineered or accidentally created in a lab. However, a major shift occurred when redacted emails were uncovered that showed that despite a lack of new evidence or findings. This, combined with the publishing of “The Proximal Orgin of SARS-CoV-2” which strongly favored the lab origin without any actual evidence, illustrated that these scientists were changing their minds based on plausibility and opinion rather than hard facts and evidence. As a result, this doesn’t illustrate a strong pursuit of scientific truth but rather a desire to be published and propose an explanation without any strong reasoning. Therefore, I don’t believe that the authors of “The Proximal Origin” were acting in any scientific way but rather just aiming to publish an argument on the topic. Despite some scientists agreeing with them and their decision to publish, I do believe that you can have significant changes when trying to uncover scientific truths such as the origin of this virus. Still, the scientists of this paper did not approach it in a scientifically sound way, as they proposed a strong opinion without any evidence to back them up. As many scientists, such as Sergei Pond, found the uncovered emails to be revealing, I think it points to the fact that despite knowing their published article would be faulty, they decided to publish anyway without the evidence.
Overall, I believe the scientists in this article understand that even though the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is not yet determined, as there isn’t enough data, it is possible to change one’s conclusions as new evidence and data surfaces. The issues occur when you decide to circumvent the scientific process and publish opinions to the public without actually having any support. As a result, then in the case of the paper “The Proximal Orgin of SARS-CoV-2”, they should not be believed as their whole case and arguments were not adequately supported and scientifically backed.