《病毒：追寻真相》是 Alina Chan 和 Matt Ridley 合著的一本关于 COVID-19 大流行起源调查的书籍。该书深入探讨了病毒学基础、COVID-19 大流行的历史和流行病学、科学和政府机构的反应以及支持两种假设的不同证据。这本书没有提供任何新的爆炸性揭示，但它对自疫情爆发以来发现的零散信息进行了简洁、易懂的总结。

🦠 **两种假设：自然起源 vs. 实验室起源** 这本书探讨了关于 COVID-19 起源的两种主要假设：自然起源和实验室起源。作者深入分析了支持两种假设的证据，并讨论了相关科学和政府机构的反应。 自然起源假设认为，SARS-CoV-2 病毒最初是从动物自然传播到人类的（即动物源性）。该假设得到了许多科学家和研究的支撑，包括对病毒基因组的分析以及对蝙蝠和穿山甲等动物的调查。 实验室起源假设则认为，SARS-CoV-2 病毒可能起源于实验室，例如在病毒研究过程中意外泄漏或人为制造。该假设得到了部分科学家和研究的关注，例如病毒基因组中一些不寻常的特征以及对武汉病毒研究所的调查。 作者在书中详细阐述了支持两种假设的证据，并分析了各自的合理性，为读者提供了一个全面的视角。

🔬 **科学界的争议和调查** 关于 COVID-19 起源的争论在科学界引发了巨大的争议，并导致了多项调查。作者详细介绍了这些调查的过程和结果，并分析了科学界对两种假设的态度变化。 最初，大多数科学家倾向于支持自然起源假设，并将实验室起源假设视为阴谋论。然而，随着时间的推移，越来越多的科学家开始对实验室起源假设持开放态度，并呼吁进行更多调查。 作者还探讨了科学界对该问题的研究方法和伦理规范，并分析了不同机构在调查中的角色和责任。

🏛️ **机构的反应和透明度** 除了科学界，作者还探讨了政府机构和国际组织在 COVID-19 起源调查中的反应和透明度。 作者指出，一些机构在调查过程中表现出缺乏透明度，并对某些证据进行了掩盖或淡化。例如，世界卫生组织（WHO）在早期调查中对实验室起源假设的调查不够充分，引发了质疑。 作者还分析了不同机构之间的协调和合作程度，并探讨了它们在未来应对类似疫情时的改进方向。 作者认为，为了更好地应对未来的疫情，我们需要加强科学界、政府机构和国际组织之间的合作，并提高透明度和问责制。

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-viral

Finalist #12 in the Book Review Contest      

[This is one of the finalists in the 2022 book review contest. It’s not by me - it’s by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done, to prevent their identity from influencing your decisions. I’ll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you’ve read them all, I’ll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked - SA]

Introduction  

Alina Chan and Matt Ridley’s Viral is a book about the investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. In case you haven’t been following, there’s been a shift in the scientific consensus on this topic. For about the first year of the pandemic, it was widely accepted that SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, had a natural origin, meaning that it first spread to humans naturally from an animal (also called a zoonotic origin). Any suggestion that it could have come from a lab was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Then, sometime around spring 2021 something changed. Well-known, respected scientists began to voice the opinion that SARS-CoV-2 might have come from a lab, or that it’s at least a plausible hypothesis that deserves an investigation. The scientific consensus abruptly shifted from “definitely natural origin” to “both natural origin and lab origin are viable hypotheses that should be investigated.”

Viral is a deep dive into this issue from all angles, covering the basics of virology, the history and epidemiology of the COVID-19 pandemic, the response of scientific and governmental institutions, and various pieces of evidence for both hypotheses. It doesn’t contain any new, bombshell revelations, but it’s a neat, accessible summary of the scattered bits of information that have been uncovered since the start of the pandemic. In this review I’ll try to distill some of the most important information and discuss my own interpretation of it. 

I enjoyed the book and recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. However, many of the authors’ points (especially on technical issues) have counterpoints from other scientists who lean more heavily towards the natural origins hypothesis. So I think it’s best to include the book as part of a “package-deal” recommendation, rather than presenting it as a perfectly objective source. The last section of this review will include some more recommended sources to check out, including writing from advocates of the natural origins hypothesis with counterpoints to claims made in the book. I’ll also link one here in case you don’t make it that far.

In my view, the book actually deals with two separate topics. The first is the object-level question – where did COVID come from? The second is the meta-level question – what can we say about the ability and willingness of different institutions to answer the question of the pandemic’s origins?