Ygggdrasil said:
This statement seems to contradict what is stated in the NPR article:
The Science letter that Worobey signed was illogical and irresponsible.
It was illogical, because it criticized the WHO report as concluding a lab leak was unlikely based on insufficient evidence. However, the WHO report based its conclusion on evidence:
Andersen et al had shown the virus was not purposefully manipulated,
Shi Zhengli who heads the relevant Wuhan laboratory had done tests to exclude the possibility they had the virus (screens of all bat samples, full catalogue of their live viruses) or that staff had been infected (antibody tests); the WHO report
annex contained some additional details such as the blood samples having been drawn in March 2020, and their reply on some details as to whether all staff were tested. We also know that the laboratory was the focus of conspiracy theories, all of which are absurd and cross-checks confirm what we have thought all along: their research is to collect samples and publish descriptions of those samples. Many things that might be imagined to be secrets if some of the conspiracy theories were true were in fact openly published or mentioned by the Wuhan Institute themselves. For example, a recent
paper, submitted before the pandemic, gives information about 630 novel Coronavirus sequences; it is not reasonable to imagine that including SARS2 they would have had more sequences, but chose to omit those from the paper because they knew that SARS2 would cause the pandemic. Another example is
RaTG13, their closest virus to SARS2, that although was published in full only after the pandemic started, had been published in part
several years before as sample ID 4991; if they were keeping SARS2 a secret, it doesn't make sense that they knew to keep SARS2 a secret, but not sample ID 4991.
The WHO report concluded a lab leak was unlikely enough not to warrant further investigation at that time, but also said that investigation might be warranted if new evidence turned up. The WHO report correctly prioritized subsequent studies such as sampling of bats and other animals to try to uncover hosts of the virus, and investigation of patient samples to try to uncover cases earlier than the current official earliest cases - note that such cases (similar to the new preprints from Worobey and colleagues) could help indicate whether eg. Huanan market was the origin, or even point back towards the WIV if such cases were found to cluster around it.
The letter was irresponsible because it was written with Alina Chan, a conspiracy theorist, and given the above evidence would only make sense if Shi Zhengli was essentially being accused - with no supporting evidence - of fabricating data. This hindered the international cooperation that would have aided the subsequent studies recommended by the WHO.
On Worobey's latest
preprint, his co-authors include Marion Koopmans (an author of the WHO report whose
comments suggest she continues to stand by it) and Kristian Andersen, who criticized Worobey's Science letter as "
grandstanding". So I'm pretty sure that at least some of Worobey's co-authors would agree with me that his Science letter was illogical and irresponsible.