Maxim Pfaffenrot
Leibniz Universität Hannover
In the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, questions concerning the origins of the virus arose, as in the proximity of the epicenter of the first infections in Wuhan, China, was a virology lab conducting Gain-of-Function research on Corona viruses. This gave rise to a widely reported hypothesis, that the outbreak originated from a leak in that lab, frequently known as the lab-leak theory. In a recent paper by Eric Winsberg, he criticizes the first paper written by Anderson et al. on the subject “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” (2021) otherwise just known as Proximal Origin, for strongly supporting the counter-hypothesis that COVID-19 is of zoological origin during a time when such support was too early. According to Winsberg, this early support led to the gatekeeping of scientists, who supported the lab-leak theory. The group of biologists and virologists, Anderson et al, who wrote the Proximal Origin, were given the task of researching the lab-leak theory at the very beginning of the pandemic, while operating on the little evidence they had at the time. In a later subpoena in 2023, their private communications revealed that their confidence at the time of writing the Proximal Origin for the zoological hypothesis was far weaker than indicated in their paper. Winsberg argues that their choice of defending the zoological origin was motivated by bad non-epistemic values through outside influences from science bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci. This episode is part of Winsberg’s larger project in which he uses the Proximal Origin episode as a case study to show how science bureaucrats shape and influence science due to bad institutional incentives they face. In this paper I will not argue against his positive claims. However, I will argue that his representation of the episode is too one-sided and attempt to defend Andersen et al.’s choice to support the zoological hypothesis.
First, I will provide a brief timeline of the events around the writing of the Proximal Origin, then I will elaborate on Winsberg’s position and then will qualify some of his criticisms of the episode, particularly defending Andersen et al.’s scientific inquiry using an inductive risk argument.
Chair: tba
Time:
Location:
SOPhiA 2026 