Truth decayCalling Out Bad Science

Published 26 September 2020

Two weeks ago, a group of scientists posted an article in which they claimed that certain features of the COVID-19 virus lend support to the theory that the virus was synthetic, that is, that it was made or modified in a lab rather than having evolved naturally. Since such claims serve as the basis for conspiracy theories, and since the article has not yet been peer-reviewed, scientists at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security took it upon themselves to do an informal peer review of the article. Their detailed, page-by-page review of the article is unequivocal in its conclusions: the authors failed to provide accurate or supportive evidence to back up their claim. Moreover, the article contains many errors of both facts and interpretation.

Two weeks ago, Li-Meng Yan, Shu Kang, Jie Guan, and Shanchang Hu posted an article in which they claimed that certain features of the COVID-19 virus lend support to the theory that the virus was synthetic, that is, that it was made or modified in a lab rather than having evolved naturally. The article states that “SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus” and that “evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone.”

The article, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, is titled “Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route.

Because the contention that the virus was man made in a Chinese lab serves as a basis for wild conspiracy theories disseminated on social media, scientists at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security took it upon themselves to do an informal peer review of the article.

The Johns Hopkins scientists’ detailed, page-by-page review of the article is unequivocal in its conclusions: the authors failed to provide accurate or supportive evidence to back up their claim. Moreover, the article contains many errors of both facts and interpretation, and some what the authors claim to be a supportive evidence for their claims in fact contradicts and undermines their assertions.

The Johns Hopkins’s refutation of the article thoroughly details the errors in it and provides accurate information about each topic.

Here is the introduction to the Johns Hopkins critique of the posted article:

In Response: Yan et al. Preprint Examinations of the Origin of SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has caused more than 961,000 known deaths1 since it was reported to the World Health Organization on December 31, 2019. Determining the origin of the pandemic coronavirus is of great importance, not only to understand the mechanics of how the virus replicates and spreads but also to anticipate and prevent additional viruses from becoming future health security crises. If an origin can be found for SARS-CoV-2, steps can then be taken to prevent a similar pathway for other viruses to lead to a pandemic. For that reason, it is the responsibility of the scientific community to review and analyze data relating to the origin of SARS-CoV-2.