Calling Out Bad Science

Several analyses of the potential origin of SARS-CoV-2 have been published in scientific journals that provide peer review prior to publication.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Peer review is central to the scientific process because scrutiny by experts allows for meaningful conclusions to be drawn about available data and reduces inappropriate extrapolation or misinterpretation. It is an imperfect process, often criticized for slowness, but peer review is a necessary part of building reliability in the scientific record. Complex scientific details are best understood and critiqued by others who are also experts in a technical field. When the audience for an article is broadened, even to a technical audience in an adjacent scientific field, data may appear smoother and less conflicting than it is in reality, leading to a blurring or skewing of its real meaning.

In this document, we have undertaken a scientific review of a recent report, released as a preprint put forward by the Rule of Law Society, authored by Li-Meng Yan, Shu Kang, Jie Guan, and Shanchang Hu. The report, Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route, 10 presents a theory about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 but offers contradictory and inaccurate information that does not support their argument. As the report has not been submitted to a scientific peer-reviewed publication, which would provide the expert scrutiny expected by the scientific community and the larger public, we aim to provide an objective analysis of details included in the report, as would be customary in a peer-review process.

1. COVID-19 dashboard by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University. Johns Hopkins University of Medicine Coronavirus Resource Center website. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

2. Luan J, Jin X, Lu Y, Zhang L. SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike protein favors ACE2 from Bovidae and Cricetidae. J Med Virol. April 1, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25817

3. Anderson KG, Rambaut A, Lipkin WI, Holmes EC, Garry RF. The proximal origin of SARA-CoV-2. Nat Med. 2020;26:450-452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9

4. Zhou P, Yang Z-L, Wang X-G, et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature. 2020;579:270-273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2012-7

5. Leitner T, Kumar S. Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from? Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37(9):2463-2464. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa162

6. Xia X. Extreme genomic CpG deficiency in SARS-CoV-2 and evasion of host antiviral defense. Mol Biol Evol. 2020;37(9):2699-2705. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa094

7. Zhou H, Chen X, Hu T, et al. A novel bat coronavirus closely related to SARS-CoV-2 contains natural insertions at the S1/S2 cleavage site of the Spike protein. Curr Biol. 2020;30(11):2196-2203.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.05.023

8. Zhang Y-Z, Holmes EC. A Genomic Perspective on the Origin and Emergence of SARS-CoV-2. Cell.

2020;181(2):223-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.035

9. Tang Z, Wu C, Li X, et al. On the origin and continuing evolution of SARS-CoV-2. Natl Sci Rev. 2020;7(6):1012-1023. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa036

10. Yan L-M, Kang S, Guan J, Hu S. Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory

Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. New York: Rule of Law Society & Rule of Law Foundation; 2020.