Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:55, 4 March 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was a past Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. COVID-19 Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

PREDICT Funding of GoF studies

Thucydides411, you deleted a few sentences in the funding section, based on missing reference from the sources provided. It would be better if you append the tag instead of deleting content. It would also be good for you to add content, such as the examples you mentioned in your edit summary, instead of deleting content. Thanks. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You're adding unsourced claims, and then criticizing me for removing them.

PREDICT is primarily known for collecting viral samples from wildlife, not for gain-of-function research. If you're just trying to illustrate gain-of-function research, there are much more famous studies you should describe (such as the avian influenza study). Why are you instead including unsourced material about a program that appears to have little to do with gain-of-function research? -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PREDICT funded partners which both collected viral samples from wildlife and performed gain-of-function experiments on them. If you feel there is content that needs better sourcing, then instead of deleting content, it would be better to clarify sources. This is a new article and there is a lot that can be improved. Besides for PREDICT, there are other funding programs we can add, and sources to reference for their activities. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There's currently no sourcing for your claims, as far as I can tell. You're saying that partners that worked with PREDICT did gain-of-function research. Was that research funded by PREDICT?

But more importantly, why is PREDICT being used as an example here, when there are much more famous examples? Is it because conspiracy theorists have tried to tie PREDICT to the coronavirus pandemic? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are in fact both primary and secondary sources, which I will add to the article. Please see WP:NOTPERFECT and give the time required for editors to improve and expand this article instead of deleting content. To answer your question, PREDICT was by far the largest single funding program for GoF research, but not the only one, as you correctly state (please contribute to the article by adding any others you may know). ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are unacceptable. I find your claim that PREDICT was the largest program for gain-of-function research dubious. Again, why are you using PREDICT to illustrate this research? Why not much more famous gain-of-function studies? -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You asked me why I included PREDICT, and I answered, saying they are the largest fund ($200m). I also clarified with you that its not a program dedicated entirely to GoF research, but that it includes it. You will notice also that so far I've added only the Peter Rottier paper into the History section, which was the first notable publication, and I will add more, as we improve and expand the article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that 200 million USD for gain-of-function research? As I understand it, PREDICT funding went overwhelmingly to sample collection and virus characterization. I don't know if any funding went to gain-of-function research. I know this is a common claim of conspiracy theorists online, and there may have been some funding for gain-of-function research in PREDICT (though I've never seen any reliable source that discusses it), but that appears not to be anywhere near its main focus. You're giving PREDICT as an example of gain-of-function research, and that's currently entirely unsourced. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you here to help build an encyclopedic entry on this important field of medical research, or dispel conspiracy theories that may be associated with it? So far, you have yet to add any content, and have instead deleted content, just like you deleted important content from other pages I created, without sufficient reason. Gain of function research is usually conducted as part of larger projects which draw funds from multiple sources and PREDICT is just one of them (like this source says). Please help improve and expand the article instead of deleting content. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Part of building an encyclopedic entry is removing unsourced content and original research. What part of the study you linked was funded by PREDICT? How much of PREDICT's funding (if any) went to gain-of-function research? You still have not provided any sources that say that PREDICT funded gain-of-function research. I'm removing this content. If you find good sourcing, then please come back to the talk page to discuss it before adding the content about PREDICT back in. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The source details a GoF study that was funded by PREDICT. You can read more about it here. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar you are with how scientific funding works, but one paper can involve different research projects funded by different grants. From that funding statement, it's unclear what research in the study was funded through PREDICT. But this is a case in which WP:PRIMARY is highly relevant. Misplaced Pages policy does not allow editors to go digging through primary sources to determine answers to questions like this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GoF research is a very narrow field and funding is usually provided as part of a larger project with a network of partners undertaking different parts of it. The NIH is obviously the largest funding provider of medical research in the general, and PREDICT is mentioned in that source, for a project undertaken by two partners. There are other sources that talk about PREDICT and GoF studies, but its not the main topic of this article, as this conversation would seem to indicate. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, any claims about PREDICT funding gain-of-function research would need secondary sourcing. To be included in this article, due weight would also have to be considered. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The source mentioned above is a secondary source, and there are others like it. But like I said, it's not an important detail in this article. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The paper and the grants website you linked above are both primary sources in this context. You're taking an acknowledgement statement from a paper and making inferences based on it. If a reliable source then took that paper and used the acknowledgment to make a statement about PREDICT, that would be a secondary source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a good secondary source. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Policy reminder

Editors are reminded that WP:V is a core content policy. Text should be supported by citations; unreferenced text may be removed. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Funding Section

Magnovvig, thanks for fleshing out the content. I was just going to add the H5N1 case and the significance of mammalian transmissibility. Do you think it would make sense to add back the Funding section, as it was and still is a topic that multiple reliable sources are reporting on? ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality on Cov2 controversies

I am really concerned by sentences such as: "a number of conspiracy theories spread about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, sometimes deployed as a form of political propaganda" in the Society and Culture section. The conspiracy qualifier is solely that of individuals and not wikipedia's to adopt. Alexbrn you revoked my changes when rebasing on them should have been the right approach, as the current version of the article is problematic due to the very reasons you invoked WP:CRITS. Please develop. Thanks. Olivier Peltre (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea that SARS-CoV-2 was constructed in a lab is a conspiracy theory, per reliable sources. Misplaced Pages reflects those. Silently changing this to "theory" is problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Fact is the reliability of these sources has been put in question by other sources and individuals (the modifications you reverted pointed to such doubts, coming from both scientists and Biden administration officials). Having read the sources you mentioned, I found nothing more than authoritative arguments (one the most convincing being: "Even Trump said it!"). Olivier Peltre (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A theory may be either true or false, while a conspiracy theory is generally regarded as false. Regarding facts, this page has the right to mention that 1) GOF research has been conducted on coronaviruses in Wuhan, as per reliable sources (meaning: from peer-reviewed publications from the very scientists having conducted this research) and 2) Laboratory accidents do happen (meaning: have happened in the past, e.g. several reported SARS-Cov-1 recontaminations, and various older concerns reported in the rest of this page). Please trust I do not wish to feed a sterilous debate on the subject and do not believe Misplaced Pages is the place for opinion debates. I am only surprised to find the GOF page biased on such a matter. If you think neutral exposition of points 1) and 2) should be censored on the WP, please say so. Olivier Peltre (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure what that means, but there is no doubt there have been conspiracy theories about this per WP:RS, and Misplaced Pages is bound to reflect that. Alexbrn (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree there has been conspiracy theories. I’m concerned with lapidary discredit on the possibility of accidental lab contamination, a pathway still under investigation. This possibility raises issues regarding the pursuit of GOF research. Olivier Peltre (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not decide what research is funded and how, but only reports about reliably published results of such findings. Unless there was reliably published evidence, presenting a false balance to suggest that leaks or bioengineered virii may be linked to the pandemic violates WP:NPOV. Unduely pushing such suggestions results in echoing minsinformation and conspiracy theories (with penty of sources reporting on that)... —PaleoNeonate – 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Biological weapons programs vs biological research

@Alexbrn and PaleoNeonate: gain of function research, as it's understood today, is a practice used by microbiologists to understand disease biology and risk. Articles that I'm reading in the academic press describe the practice as relatively recent. However, This article places a huge emphasis on the concept of gain-of-function research as a tactic in biological warfare. This editorial view is accomplished by citing newspaper or political articles that don't mention gain of function research (e.g. this LA Times article about Soviet bioweaponry research , or this lawfare blog piece about Synthetic biology ). It's also accomplished by frontloading the article with this questionable content. I think the article needs to be re-written so that readers don't come here and immediately think, "ah, gain-of-function research is a form of biological warfare." That view would be a serious distortion of gain-of-function research, and the risks and debates associated with it. -Darouet (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a person you pinged, but I agree. The original writer of this article seemed to have a POV, and it might have spilled over into how they structured the article. Sounds like this biological weapons stuff might be WP:SYNTH. I support your proposed re-structuring. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• Previous MCOTM articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Start-Class COVID-19 articles
• Mid-importance COVID-19 articles
• WikiProject COVID-19 articles