US COVID-origins hearing puts scientific journals in the hot seat

Max Kozlov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01129-x

IF: 64.8

2024-04-17

Nature

Abstract:Politicians spar over whether academic publishers colluded with government scientists to suppress the lab-leak hypothesis. Politicians spar over whether academic publishers colluded with government scientists to suppress the lab-leak hypothesis.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Controversial virus-hunting scientist skewered at US COVID-origins hearing

Mariana Lenharo,Lauren Wolf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01305-z

IF: 64.8

2024-05-02

Nature

Abstract:Lawmakers interrogated Peter Daszak over his ties to China and whether his organisation, EcoHealth Alliance, has been a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Lawmakers interrogated Peter Daszak over his ties to China and whether his organisation, EcoHealth Alliance, has been a good steward of taxpayer dollars.

multidisciplinary sciences
'Preposterous': Anthony Fauci denies cover-up of COVID origins during tense hearing

Max Kozlov,Lauren Wolf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01657-6

IF: 64.8

2024-06-04

Nature

Abstract:Long-awaited testimony ends in fireworks as US lawmakers spar over the former infectious-disease official's pandemic actions. Long-awaited testimony ends in fireworks as US lawmakers spar over the former infectious-disease official's pandemic actions.

multidisciplinary sciences
The Question of the Origins of COVID-19 and the Ends of Science

Paul A Komesaroff,Dominic E Dwyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10303-1

Abstract:Intense public interest in scientific claims about COVID-19, concerning its origins, modes of spread, evolution, and preventive and therapeutic strategies, has focused attention on the values to which scientists are assumed to be committed and the relationship between science and other public discourses. A much discussed claim, which has stimulated several inquiries and generated far-reaching political and economic consequences, has been that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and then, either inadvertently or otherwise, released to the public by a laboratory worker. This has been pursued despite a clear refutation, through comprehensive genomic analysis, of the hypothesis that the virus was deliberately engineered and the failure of detailed investigations to identify any evidence in support of a laboratory leak. At the same time a substantial, established body of knowledge about the many factors underlying the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases has been largely ignored-including climate change and other mechanisms of environmental destruction, tourism, patterns of trade, and cultural influences. The existence and conduct of these debates have raised questions about the vulnerability of science to manipulation for political purposes. Scientific discourses are vulnerable because: (i) claims can be made with no more than probabilistic force; (ii) alleged "facts" are always subject to interpretation, which depends on social, ethical, and epistemological assumptions; and (iii) science and scientists are not inherently committed to any single set of values and historically have served diverse, and sometimes perverse, social and political interests. In the face of this complexity, the COVID-19 experience highlights the need for processes of ethical scrutiny of the scientific enterprise and its strategic deployment. To ensure reliability of truth claims and protection from corrupting influences robust ethical discourses are required that are independent of, and at times even contrary to, those of science itself.
DOI：http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/ijcemr.2020.07.011 Science Versus Public Sentiment: “Covid-19 is not a Bioweapon Created in a Laboratory, Say UK Scientists”, “Nope, Don’t Believe It”, Say UK Public.

John Paull

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26855/ijcemr.2020.07.011

2020-07-24

International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine Research

Abstract:In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, an unresolved question is the aetiology of Covid-19: Where did this novel coronavirus come from? When an account by “UK scientists” ruled out Covid-19 as a bioweapon and as a laboratory creation, the dismissal of the claims by the ‘vox pop’ was swift and deci-sive, considered and multifactorial. There was a consensus of public sentiment (of 100%) to reject the two scientific propositions of “no bioweapon” and “no laboratory involvement”. The present paper reports on the top 100 comments (ranked by reader votes and accounting for 13,983 votes, comprising 13,156 up-arrow votes and 827 down-arrow votes) of UK newspaper readers to the dismissal of Covid-19 as a bioweapon and as a laboratory construct. Commentators pointed out the coincidences surrounding the outbreak, especially that the reported ground-zero city of the outbreak, Wuhan, China, was also host to several coronavirus research laboratories. Commentators expressed their skepticism of governments, institutions, and also scientists to tell them the truth (even if those entities knew it). Commentators dismissed the lan-guage of the scientists, pointing out (quite rightly) that “improbable” does not equal “impossible”. Commentators proposed variously that Covid-19 escaped from a laboratory, was “Made in China”, and was a bioweapon. Some readers called for banning the eating of wild animals in China and thereby excluding that channel as a potential viral source in the future. The proximal origin of Covid-19 is presently an unsettled question. Scientists’ dismissal of the hypo-thesis that Covid-19 is a bioweapon or a laboratory construct is itself dismissed by the public. The public want answers but they are also quite ready to question and reject the accounts of scientists. In the meantime, the aetiology of Covid-19 can be expected to remain contested and unsettled for some considerable time.

Sociology,Political Science
Public understanding of science: Communicating in the midst of a pandemic

Salim S. Abdool Karim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221089391

2022-05-02

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:Public Understanding of Science, Volume 31, Issue 3, Page 282-287, April 2022. While Covid-19 created unprecedented transparency with real-time reporting across the globe, the pandemic's politically charged environment made public communication of scientific information particularly challenging. Scientists, as authoritative voices, were thrust into the public eye to explain the evidence amid uncertainty, a changing virus, distrust in government and concerns about their self-interest and hidden agendas. Honest communication that provides the public with enough easy-to-understand information to make up their own minds is essential during the pandemic; the public deserves nothing less.

communication,history & philosophy of science
Institutional and News Media Denominations of COVID-19 and Its Causative Virus: Between Naming Policies and Naming Politics

Fernando Prieto-Ramos,Jiamin Pei,Le Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481320938467

2020-01-01

Discourse & Communication

Abstract:From the beginning of the COVID-19 global pandemic, it became clear that the practices of naming the disease, its nature and its handling by the health authorities, the news media and the politicians had social and ideological implications. This article presents a sociosemiotic study of such practices as reflected in a corpus of headlines of eight newspapers of four countries in the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis. After an analysis of the institutional naming choices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, the study focuses on the changes in newspapers’ naming patterns following the WHO’s announcement of the disease name on 11 February 2020. A subsequent political controversy related to naming in the United States is then examined in reports of The New York Times and The Washington Post as a further illustration of how public discourses and perceptions can rapidly evolve in the context of health crises.
Disputes over the figures of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Epistemic diversity, dissemination of science, and political opposition

Jean‐Paul Sarrazin,Carlos F. Cáceres

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13833

2024-08-30

Sociology of Health & Illness

Abstract:The health policies imposed by multiple national governments after the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2 were publicly justified by official figures on the deaths that the new virus would have caused and could cause in the future. At the same time, however, groups of people from different countries expressed their scepticism about those figures. Although they were categorised as 'anti‐science', 'spreaders of misinformation' or 'conspiracy theorists' in some media, many of those sceptics claimed to be based on scientific evidence. This article qualitatively analyses a sample of the content published by sceptics on their social media between 2020 and 2022. More specifically, it examines the shared documents supposedly coming from the scientific community. We find very diverse content ranging from unsubstantiated assumptions to documents produced by prestigious scientists inviting questions about the fatality rates, the mathematical models anticipating millions of deaths, and the real numbers of people who died from COVID‐19. The disputes surrounding the official figures lead us to a reflection about the relationship between, epistemic diversity, the dissemination of science, censorship, and new forms of political opposition. We also touch upon the nature and ethics of scientific controversy in times of a 'war' against 'misinformation'.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical,sociology
In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency

Jing-Bao Nie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-020-10025-8

Abstract:Two theories on the origins of COVID-19 have been widely circulating in China and the West respectively, one blaming the United States and the other a highest-level biocontainment laboratory in Wuhan, the initial epicentre of the pandemic. Both theories make claims of biological warfare attempts. According to the available scientific evidence, these claims are groundless. However, like the episodes of biological warfare during the mid-twentieth century, the spread of these present-day conspiracy theories reflects a series of longstanding and damaging trends in the international scene which include deep mistrust, animosities, the power of ideologies such as nationalism, and the sacrifice of truth in propaganda campaigns. Also, the threats associated with biological warfare, bioterrorism, and the accidental leakage of deadly viruses from labs are real and growing. Thus, developing a better global governance of biosafety and biosecurity than exists at present is an urgent imperative for the international community in the broader context of a looming Cold War II. For such a governance, an ethical framework is proposed based upon the triple ethical values of transparency, trust, and the common good of humanity.
An open debate on SARS-CoV-2's proximal origin is long overdue

Rossana Segreto,Yuri Deigin,Kevin McCairn,Alejandro Sousa,Dan Sirotkin,Karl Sirotkin,Jonathan J. Couey,Adrian Jones,Daoyu Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.03910

2021-02-09

Abstract:There is a near consensus view that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include: a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of evidence of recombination events; a high pre-existing binding to human ACE2; a novel furin cleavage site insert; a flat glycan binding domain of the spike protein which conflicts with host evasion survival patterns exhibited by other coronaviruses, and high human and mouse peptide mimicry. Initial assumptions against a laboratory origin, by contrast, have remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, over a year after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Given the immense social and economic impact of this pandemic, identifying the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to preventing future outbreaks. The search for SARS-CoV-2's origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin.

Populations and Evolution,Genomics
Politicizing COVID-19 Lingua in Western and Arab Newspapers: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Tariq Elyas,Abdulrahman Aljabri,Abrar Mujaddadi,Alaa Almohammadi,Iman Oraif,Maather Alrawi,Nuha AlShurfa,Aseel Rasheed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09933-2

Abstract:COVID-19 has struck the world in an unprecedented way. Countries quickly tried to counter the rapid spread of the virus by imposing strict measures and national lockdowns. At the same time, some governments took advantage of the pandemic to besmirch their opponents. We utilize van Dijk (J Polit Ideol 11(2):115-140 2006) critical discourse analysis model to investigate how newspaper headlines reacted to COVID-19 from through ideological lenses. Results show that while the US implied that China is the origin of the virus, headlines in Arab newspapers showed that Saudi Arabia blamed travel to Iran for the early increases of COVID-19 cases.
Unresolved COVID Controversies: 'Normal science' and potential non-scientific influences

Carlos F Cáceres

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2022.2036219

Abstract:ABSTRACTThe COVID-19 health crisis has so far involved enormous consequences in human pain, suffering and death. While biomedical science responded early, its response has been marked by several controversies between what appeared to be mainstream perspectives, and diverse alternative views; far from leading to productive debate, controversies often preceded polarisation and, allegedly, exclusion and even censorship of alternative views, followed by the pretense of scientific consensus. This paper describes and discusses the main controversies in the production of COVID biomedical knowledge and derived control measures, to establish if alternative positions are also legitimate from a 'normal science' perspective (rather than comparing them for superiority); explores potential non-scientific explanations of the alleged exclusion of certain views; and analyzes ethical issues implied. The operation of non-scientific factors in scientific and regulatory processes (e.g. various forms of subtle corruption) has been documented in the past; the intervention of such influences in the mishandling of controversies (i.e. on early management, non-pharmacological prevention and vaccination) cannot be ruled out and deserves further investigation. Some of these controversies, increasingly visible in the public domain, also involve ethical challenges that need urgent attention. Polarisation, censorship and dogma are foreign to true science and must be left behind.
The Politicization of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Andrej Kirbiš,Maruša Lubej

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61943-4_9

Abstract:Political actors and institutions are largely responsible for effectively implementing the latest scientific and medical information in the form of public health measures. However, when politicians' judgments and decision-making are not founded on scientific facts or when scientific findings are misrepresented to further political goals, global crises such as pandemics may be even more galvanized. Like other scientific topics that entered public debate before 2020 (e.g., the debate on climate change), the COVID-19 pandemic has been heavily politicized worldwide. Consequently, COVID-19-related outcomes were strongly affected by politicization-a process of making a non-political issue political, i.e., debating it in the public sphere as an issue of public contestation. The present chapter presents a condensed overview and synthesis of the literature on the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic in high- and low-income countries. In addition, we discuss several mechanisms explaining why, to some extent universally, conservatives (the right-wing oriented public) were less likely to follow public health recommendations, were more COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant, and had increased infection rates, poor health outcomes, and increased mortality compared to left-wing oriented public. The mechanisms explaining the links include the media, trust, cognitions, and values. We conclude the chapter with lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and future research directions on the pandemics' politicization.
COVID-19 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

Lidia Morawska,William Bahnfleth,Philomena M. Bluyssen,Atze Boerstra,Giorgio Buonanno,Stephanie J. Dancer,Andres Floto,Francesco Franchimon,Charles Haworth,Jaap Hogeling,Christina Isaxon,Jose L. Jimenez,Jarek Kurnitski,Yuguo Li,Marcel Loomans,Guy Marks,Linsey C. Marr,Livio Mazzarella,Arsen Krikor Melikov,Shelly Miller,Donald K. Milton,William Nazaroff,Peter Nielsen,Catherine Noakes,Jordan Peccia,Xavier Querol,Chandra Sekhar,Olli Seppanen,Shin-ichi Tanabe,Raymond Tellier,Tham Kwok Wai,Pawel Wargocki,Aneta Wierzbicka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciad068

IF: 20.999

2023-01-01

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Abstract:This is an account that should be heard of an important struggle: the struggle of a large group of experts who came together at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to warn the world about the risk of airborne transmission and the consequences of ignoring it. We alerted the World Health Organization about the potential significance of the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the urgent need to control it, but our concerns were dismissed. Here we describe how this happened and the consequences. We hope that by reporting this story we can raise awareness of the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to be open to new evidence, and to prevent it from happening again. Acknowledgement of an issue, and the emergence of new evidence related to it, is the first necessary step towards finding effective mitigation solutions. In April 2020, 36 experts alerted the WHO about the importance of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. WHO dismissed this advice until it was published in an international journal in July 2020. This delay has consequences extending throughout the pandemic.
Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Cory J Clark,Lee Jussim,Komi Frey,Sean T Stevens,Musa Al-Gharbi,Karl Aquino,J Michael Bailey,Nicole Barbaro,Roy F Baumeister,April Bleske-Rechek,David Buss,Stephen Ceci,Marco Del Giudice,Peter H Ditto,Joseph P Forgas,David C Geary,Glenn Geher,Sarah Haider,Nathan Honeycutt,Hrishikesh Joshi,Anna I Krylov,Elizabeth Loftus,Glenn Loury,Louise Lu,Michael Macy,Chris C Martin,John McWhorter,Geoffrey Miller,Pamela Paresky,Steven Pinker,Wilfred Reilly,Catherine Salmon,Steve Stewart-Williams,Philip E Tetlock,Wendy M Williams,Anne E Wilson,Bo M Winegard,George Yancey,William von Hippel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301642120

2023-11-28

Abstract:Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.
Call for transparency of COVID-19 models

C Michael Barton,Marina Alberti,Daniel Ames,Jo-An Atkinson,Jerad Bales,Edmund Burke,Min Chen,Saikou Y Diallo,David J D Earn,Brian Fath,Zhilan Feng,Christopher Gibbons,Ross Hammond,Jane Heffernan,Heather Houser,Peter S Hovmand,Birgit Kopainsky,Patricia L Mabry,Christina Mair,Petra Meier,Rebecca Niles,Brian Nosek,Nathaniel Osgood,Suzanne Pierce,J Gareth Polhill,Lisa Prosser,Erin Robinson,Cynthia Rosenzweig,Shankar Sankaran,Kurt Stange,Gregory Tucker,C. Michael Barton,David J. D. Earn,Peter S. Hovmand,Patricia L. Mabry,J. Gareth Polhill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8637

IF: 56.9

2020-05-01

Science

Abstract:A hallmark of science is the open exchange of knowledge. At this time of crisis, it is more important than ever for scientists around the world to openly share their knowledge, expertise, tools, and technology. Scientific models are critical tools for anticipating, predicting, and responding to complex biological, social, and environmental crises, including pandemics. They are essential for guiding regional and national governments in designing health, social, and economic policies to manage the spread of disease and lessen its impacts. However, presenting modeling results alone is not enough. Scientists must also openly share their model code so that the results can be replicated and evaluated.

multidisciplinary sciences
Fighting the Coronavirus Outbreak

Laura L. Kiessling,Peng Chen,Jie Wang,Jie Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.0c00175

IF: 4.634

2020-01-01

ACS Chemical Biology

Abstract:Laura Kiessling, ACS Chemical Biology Editor-in-Chief, and Peng Chen, ACS Chemical Biology Associate Editor: The recent global outbreak of the novel coronavirus COVID-19 is changing the research focus of scientists and the ways in which we practice science. To limit the virus spread, those in the USA are canceling both smaller (∼100 people) and large meetings, researchers are limiting their travel both overseas and within the country, and student college and graduate school visit weekends are being postponed or stopped altogether. Still, there is much uncertainty about how to proceed and what other measures should be taken. Since the outbreak began in China, Chinese scientists have already faced many of the questions that those of us in other locations are now asking. We therefore asked several Chinese scientists to discuss the strategies that they are pursuing to limit the impact of the virus both on their research and on society. Some of the actions taken by the scientists and the government under this extreme situation may have a long-term influence and shift our future research and funding paradigm. We anticipate that their perspectives will be valuable to the community.
Narratives and opinion polarization: a survey experiment

Armenak Antinyan,Thomas Bassetti,Luca Corazzini,Filippo Pavesi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-70012-6

IF: 4.6

2024-08-28

Scientific Reports

Abstract:We explore the impact of narratives on beliefs and policy opinions through a survey experiment that exposes US subjects to two media-based explanations of the causes of COVID-19. The Lab Narrative ascribes the pandemic to human error and scientific misconduct in a Chinese lab, and the Nature Narrative describes the natural causes of the virus. First, we find that both narratives influence individual beliefs about COVID-19 origins. More precisely, individual beliefs tend to be swayed in the direction of the version of the facts to which one is more exposed generating a potential source of polarization by exposure. Second, only the Nature Narrative unidirectionally affects policy opinions by increasing people's preferences toward climate protection and trust in science, therefore representing a channel for one-sided polarization by exposure. Finally, we also explore the existence of heterogeneous effects of our narratives, finding that the Lab Narrative leads to opinion polarization between Republican- and Democratic-leaning states on climate change and foreign trade. This indicates the existence of an additional channel that can lead policy opinions to diverge, which we denote polarization by social context.

multidisciplinary sciences
On Scientific Publication and Politics

Dimitri A. Christakis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2999

2024-10-08

JAMA Pediatrics

Abstract:Science is an iterative and imperfect process that arcs toward truth. Increasingly, the process itself is being criticized because findings are sometimes contradictory. The COVID-19 epidemic put this into sharp relief as we learned more about the effectiveness of preventive and treatment actions and recommendations accordingly evolved. Findings were filtered, amplified, interpreted, and disseminated through political channels. JAMA Pediatrics remains committed to publishing the best science that advances all domains of pediatric health regardless of its political implications.

pediatrics
UK Scientists Criticize White House Ban on Studies That Increase Virus Potency or Transmissibility

N. Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6378

2014-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:UK scientists have criticized a ban by the US administration on studies that increase the potency or transmissibility of viruses, saying that such studies were needed to increase understanding of viruses and to improve vaccines against them.The ban, announced unexpectedly by the White House late last week, came after a voluntary moratorium on such studies that ended in 2013 without resolving the argument between those who said that generating “superstrains” of viruses was too risky and those who defended them as a valuable tool, as long as appropriate precautions against release were in place. The White House acted ahead of a meeting on 22 October of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity.Three UK scientists at a briefing in London on 20 October held at the Science Media Centre said that the two published studies into H5N1 flu that started the scare had already produced positive results, including a better understanding of why H5N1 spread easily in birds but …
Orthodoxy, illusio, and playing the scientific game: a Bourdieusian analysis of infection control science in the COVID-19 pandemic

Trisha Greenhalgh,Mustafa Ozbilgin,Damien Contandriopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16855.3

2021-10-22

Abstract:Background: Scientific and policy bodies' failure to acknowledge and act on the evidence base for airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a timely way is both a mystery and a scandal. In this study, we applied theories from Bourdieu to address the question, "How was a partial and partisan scientific account of SARS-CoV-2 transmission constructed and maintained, leading to widespread imposition of infection control policies which de-emphasised airborne transmission?". Methods: From one international case study (the World Health Organisation) and three national ones (UK, Canada and Japan), we selected a purposive sample of publicly available texts including scientific evidence summaries, guidelines, policy documents, public announcements, and social media postings. To analyse these, we applied Bourdieusian concepts of field, doxa, scientific capital, illusio, and game-playing. We explored in particular the links between scientific capital, vested interests, and policy influence. Results: Three fields-political, state (policy and regulatory), and scientific-were particularly relevant to our analysis. Political and policy actors at international, national, and regional level aligned-predominantly though not invariably-with medical scientific orthodoxy which promoted the droplet theory of transmission and considered aerosol transmission unproven or of doubtful relevance. This dominant scientific sub-field centred around the clinical discipline of infectious disease control, in which leading actors were hospital clinicians aligned with the evidence-based medicine movement. Aerosol scientists-typically, chemists, and engineers-representing the heterodoxy were systematically excluded from key decision-making networks and committees. Dominant discourses defined these scientists' ideas and methodologies as weak, their empirical findings as untrustworthy or insignificant, and their contributions to debate as unhelpful. Conclusion: The hegemonic grip of medical infection control discourse remains strong. Exit from the pandemic depends on science and policy finding a way to renegotiate what Bourdieu called the 'rules of the scientific game'-what counts as evidence, quality, and rigour.

US COVID-origins hearing puts scientific journals in the hot seat

Controversial virus-hunting scientist skewered at US COVID-origins hearing

'Preposterous': Anthony Fauci denies cover-up of COVID origins during tense hearing

The Question of the Origins of COVID-19 and the Ends of Science

DOI：http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/ijcemr.2020.07.011 Science Versus Public Sentiment: “Covid-19 is not a Bioweapon Created in a Laboratory, Say UK Scientists”, “Nope, Don’t Believe It”, Say UK Public.

Public understanding of science: Communicating in the midst of a pandemic

Institutional and News Media Denominations of COVID-19 and Its Causative Virus: Between Naming Policies and Naming Politics

Disputes over the figures of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Epistemic diversity, dissemination of science, and political opposition

In the Shadow of Biological Warfare: Conspiracy Theories on the Origins of COVID-19 and Enhancing Global Governance of Biosafety as a Matter of Urgency

An open debate on SARS-CoV-2's proximal origin is long overdue

Politicizing COVID-19 Lingua in Western and Arab Newspapers: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Unresolved COVID Controversies: 'Normal science' and potential non-scientific influences

The Politicization of the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 and Airborne Transmission: Science Rejected, Lives Lost. Can Society Do Better?

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Call for transparency of COVID-19 models

Fighting the Coronavirus Outbreak

Narratives and opinion polarization: a survey experiment

On Scientific Publication and Politics

UK Scientists Criticize White House Ban on Studies That Increase Virus Potency or Transmissibility

Orthodoxy, illusio, and playing the scientific game: a Bourdieusian analysis of infection control science in the COVID-19 pandemic