To the Editor:
Regarding Alina Chan’s “Why COVID-19 Started in a Lab” (Guest essay in Opinion magazine, June 9):
Dr. Zhang alleges that COVID-19 has laboratory origins. The piece, richly illustrated with animated graphics online, lays out five main arguments that a team led by Dr. Shi Zhengli, a scientist based in Wuhan, China, created the virus that causes COVID-19 in their lab, leaked it, and concealed information linking the origins of the pandemic to their own work. Dr. Zhang further suggested that Dr. Shi’s collaborators may also be concealing incriminating evidence.
While these accusations are very serious, Dr. Chan’s claims are based entirely on speculation and ignore important facts, such as the presence of live wild animals linked to the SARS outbreak in the markets where many of the people allegedly first infected with COVID-19 worked and shopped. In my view, proper scientific analysis, in which the majority of experts agree in favor of natural origin, has been improperly communicated or dismissed by Dr. Chan.
The origins of the pandemic are still unclear, but Dr. Chan identified a culprit without any actual evidence.
Florence Debarre
Paris
The author is an evolutionary biologist and senior researcher at the French National Center for Scientific Research.
To the Editor:
Looking at the comments on this clear and persuasive article, it seems that many people are still turning a blind eye to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing that the article does not “prove” that the pandemic originated in a Wuhan laboratory.
However, it should be noted that the article headline includes the word “probably,” which probably won’t get us any closer to knowing the cause of the pandemic, because if the Chinese government bears any responsibility, they’re never going to come clean about it.
But even more than that, it is outrageous that, in the name of science, a group of researchers is developing the biological equivalent of a nuclear bomb in loose collaboration with Chinese researchers who not only employ shockingly low safety standards, but are also unlikely to share the most sensitive and meaningful aspects of their findings.
Would they share their nuclear weapons research with the Chinese military? The scientific community seems to prioritize research that it finds interesting over safety and real-world practicality.
Are we doing this research to prevent a pandemic? It seems to have had the opposite effect. Why are we embarking on this potential catastrophe?
Doug Kobrick
Scottsdale, Arizona
To the Editor:
The Times published a guest essay by Alina Chan stating the scientific debate: Has the Times decided to become a science journal? Has science become a matter of opinion?
By publishing this essay, the Times is implicitly inviting non-experts to weigh in on the scientific debate. But no matter how compelling the evidence presented may seem, we non-experts are not in a position to know all the evidence. We cannot see through cherry-picked data. We do not know all the alternative theories or the reasons to support them instead. This weighing is the job of the expert community.
The Times’s responsibility is to report the scientific consensus, not to flaunt every alternative view.
Dr. Chang’s failure to convince her colleagues is enough for me to reject her claims altogether.
Douglas Allchin
St. Paul, Minnesota
The author is a philosopher of science and a science educator.
To the Editor:
Understanding the origins of COVID-19 is crucial to improving responses to future pandemics. I strongly disagree with Dr. Alina Chan’s opinion piece. The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence indicates that it, like all pandemics in history, has a natural origin.
As a scientist, I am open to alternative hypotheses, but I am not neutral in discussing the lab leak theory. It comes with societal implications that concern me. During the pandemic, it has been painful to see how distrust in scientists has hindered public health measures and led to the deaths of millions of people.
“The authors’ claims foster distrust of experts and suggest a cover-up without clear motive. This kind of misinformation undermines our ability to use science to advance public health and ultimately costs lives.
Marta M. Gaul
Madison, Wisconsin
The author is an associate professor in the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Biden’s image problem
To the Editor:
One of the puzzling questions of our time is why, despite the Biden administration’s many accomplishments — accomplishments achieved in the face of an inflexible and politically motivated Republican majority in the House of Representatives — and despite the strong economy it has restored, so many Americans don’t support President Biden.
Part of the answer lies in the rise of white supremacy and the racist resentment it has generated, stoked and amplified by Donald Trump, a right-wing media that willfully distorts the facts, and politicians who have abandoned ethical standards in the pursuit of power.
But I believe Biden’s low approval ratings are primarily due to his appearance. The president has a shaky voice and gait that makes him seem older and older. Even those who praise his good judgment, experience and ability frown on his appearance.
The impact of these visuals may be unfair, but it’s understandable: Americans have come to admire the vitality and youthfulness of their leaders.
If ever there was a time to dig behind surface appearances and judge the competing candidates for their true character, it’s now. America cannot afford to prioritize charisma over character.
To the Editor:
“Customers can sue over service fees” (Food, May 29th):
Thank you for your article highlighting California’s landmark law that requires businesses, including restaurants, to disclose the full price of services rendered up front. Polls show broad support for curbing irrelevant “junk fees.”
This article may have given the misleading impression that the only mandatory fee that restaurants add to the end of a meal is the service charge. But that’s not the case. While most restaurateurs avoid unjustified fees because they are misleading, many diners in California and across the United States face a variety of fictitious charges that they don’t realize about until the bill arrives.
These include (just to name a few) a “weekend fee,” an “inflation fee,” a “healthcare fee,” a “minimum wage fee,” and even a “dine-in fee.” Each of these fees can add anywhere from 3 percent to a maximum of 20 percent to your bill, in addition to tax and tip.
To be sure, rising costs are a challenge for restaurants as well as other businesses, but consumers have made it clear they prefer honesty over unwelcome (and, for lower-income consumers, significant) surprises.
Customers love restaurants. They support their staff. What they don’t like is when their services are taken advantage of. The new law doesn’t raise or lower prices. It just says the total price has to be disclosed.
It’s about transparency and fairness.
It’s about time.
Ted Marmin
Berkeley, California
The author is president of the California Low Income Consumers Coalition, a co-sponsor of the bill.
