# 一群被北京利用的白痴

- 一樣是先餵google翻譯再修改,無附上原文的部份(標題)是譯者為方便閱讀自行加上的大綱
- 腳註連結多半是譯者自行額外補上
- 這裡將Lancet翻成《柳葉刀》，另一個常見翻法是《刺胳針》

-------------------

[**Beijing’s useful idiots / 一群被北京利用的白痴**](https://unherd.com/2021/06/beijings-useful-idiots/)
- 出處：UnHerd
- 時間：2021/6/8
- 作者：[Ian Birrell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Birrell)，獲獎記者、專欄作家、前英國首相演講稿撰稿人

**Science journals have encouraged and enforced a false Covid narrative**
**科學期刊鼓勵並強迫學者發表不實的Covid論述**

# 質疑聲浪受到阻撓

### 尼古拉·彼得羅夫斯基的論文

Just over a year ago, I stumbled across an intriguing scientific paper. It suggested the pandemic that was ripping around the world was “uniquely adapted to infect humans”; it was “not typical of a normal zoonotic infection” since it first appeared with “exceptional” ability to enter human cells.
一年多前，我偶然發現一篇耐人尋味的科學論文。它敘述正在世界各地肆虐的流行病「特別擅長感染人類」；且「非典型人畜共通傳染病」，因為它首次亮相時，入侵人體細胞的能力已經相當「優異」。

The author of the paper, Nikolai Petrovsky, was frank about the disease when we spoke back then, saying its adaptability was either “a remarkable coincidence or a sign of human intervention”. He even broke the scientific omertà by daring to admit that “no one can say a laboratory leak is not a possibility”.
論文作者尼古拉·彼得羅夫斯基(Nikolai Petrovsky)與我談論這個疾病時坦白，它的適應力「若不是非凡的巧合，就是人為干涉的跡象」。他甚至敢於打破科學界的沉默，跳出來承認「**沒有人能否認實驗室洩漏的可能性**」。

But even though Petrovsky has excellent credentials — professor of medicine at a prominent Australian university, author of more than 200 papers in scientific journals and founder of a company funded by the US government to develop new vaccine technologies — I was still anxious when my story went global. His original document had been posted on a pre-print site, so had not been peer reviewed, unlike if it had been published in a medical or scientific journal. These sorts of sites allow researchers to get findings out quickly.
儘管彼得羅夫斯基擁有卓越的資歷——**澳大利亞一所著名大學的醫學教授，在科學期刊上發表了 200 多篇論文，並且是一家由美國政府資助開發新疫苗技術的公司的創始人**——[向全球發表他的論點](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351091/Top-vaccine-scientist-says-coronavirus-come-animal-freak-nature.html)[^1]，仍令我感到焦慮。他的原始文件已發佈在原稿本網站上，沒有經過同行審閱，這種管道與發表在醫學或科學期刊上不同，能使研究人員快速獲得研究結果。

Petrovsky told me his first attempt to place these seismic findings was on BioRxiv, run by prominent New York laboratory. But it was rejected; eventually he succeeded on ArXiv, a rival server run by Cornell University.
彼得羅夫斯基告訴我，他首度嘗試將這些駭人發現放在由紐約著名實驗室營運的 BioRxiv 上，但遭到拒絕。最後，他成功在BioRxiv的競爭對手：康乃爾大學營運的服務器 ArXiv上發表[^2]。

Last week, however, he told me this important origins modelling paper had finally been accepted by Nature Scientific Reports after “a harrowing 12 months of repeated reviews, rejections, appeals, re-reviews and finally now acceptance”.
上週他告訴我，這篇重要的起源模型論文「熬過12個月的反複審查、拒絕、上訴、重新審查後，終於被《自然科學報告》接受了。」

[^1]: [Coronavirus is 'uniquely adapted to infect humans': Top vaccine scientist says it could only have come from an animal through a 'freak of nature' - and the possibility it leaked from Wuhan lab MUST be investigated](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8351091/Top-vaccine-scientist-says-coronavirus-come-animal-freak-nature.html)，作者Ian Birrell訪談Petrovsky，發表於2020/5/23

[^2]: [In silico comparison of spike protein-ACE2 binding affinities across species; significance for the possible origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus](https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199)，Petrovsky發表於ArXiv，日期2020/5/13

### 其他發表起源研究的學者也受到阻撓

This acceptance is one more sign of the changing political climate as suddenly it is deemed permissible to discuss the possibility that the virus causing havoc around the world might have emerged from a laboratory.
他的意見被接受，象徵政治環境已出現變化，因為突然間，人們獲准公開討論、這在世界各地造成浩劫的病毒可能來自於實驗室。

Petrovsky has had to endure what he calls “the legitimacy” of his paper as a peer-reviewed publication being denied for a critical 12 months — and he is far from alone.
作為同行審查的出版物，彼得羅夫斯基不得不忍受所謂的「正當性」，因為在追查疫情源頭最關鍵的頭12個月，他的論文一再被拒絕——而且他並不孤單。

“I have heard all too many tales from other academics who have been equally frustrated in getting their manuscripts dealing with research into the origins of the virus published,” he said.
他說，「我從其他學者口中聽到太多遭遇，發表有關病毒起源研究文章的過程，讓他們同樣感到氣餒。」

Bear in mind that in the heat of this pandemic, papers printed in important journals were peer-reviewed within 10 weeks; one rattled through the process in just nine days for Nature.
請記住，當全球大流行正值高峰時，一些發表在重要期刊上的論文，10 週內就完成同行審查； 其中一篇甚至短短 9 天就登上 《自然》期刊。

But, like Petrovsky, I have heard similar stories from many other frustrated experts who confronted the conventional wisdom that this lethal virus was a natural spillover event.
但是，和彼得羅夫斯基一樣，我從許多其他沮喪的專家那裡聽到了類似的故事，他們反對這個致命病毒「單純為自然產生的意外」的主流觀點。

Some could not even get letters published, let alone challenge those key papers promoting the Chinese perspective which have since turned out to be flawed or wrong.
有些人甚至無法發表信件，更不用說挑戰那些宣揚中國觀點的重點論文了，這些媚中論文後來被證明含有缺陷或謬誤。

### 不公正的科學機構與期刊

Only now is acceptance emerging that the science establishment colluded to dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, assisted by prominent experts with clear conflicts of interest, patsy politicians and a pathetic media that mostly failed to do its job.
直到現在，人們才開始接受實驗室洩漏假說，因為這個假說一直被私下勾結的科學機構、規避利益衝突的知名科學家、懦弱的政客、不稱職的可悲媒體抹黑成陰謀論。

And yet, at the heart of this scandal lie some of the world’s most influential science journals. These should provide a forum for pulsating debate as experts explore and test theories, especially on something as contentious and fascinating as the possible origins of a global pandemic.
況且，此醜聞的核心來自數個世界上最具權威性的科學期刊。這些期刊理應提供一個論壇，讓正反兩方科學家進行激烈辯論，尤其是全球大流行的可能起源、這種充滿爭議和吸睛的議題。

Instead, some have played a central role in shutting down discussion and discrediting alternative views on the origins, with disastrous consequences for our understanding of events.
然而，一些學者卻成了最大的阻力，制止討論並詆毀關於起源的其他觀點，為理解事實真相的過程帶來災難性的後果。

Many scientists have been dismayed by their actions. “It is very important to talk about the scientific journals — I think they are partially responsible for the cover-up,” said Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo, a leading French evolutionary biologist and key member of the Paris Group of scientists challenging the established view on these issues.
許多科學家對他們的做為感到氣餒。「檢討科學期刊非常重要——我認為它們對掩蓋事實得負上一部分責任，」具領導地位的法國進化生物學家、巴黎科學家小組的主要成員 Virginie Courtier-Orgogozo 說道，他們想挑戰現有的觀點。

The rejection of the lab leak hypothesis, she argues, in many places was not due to Trump’s intervention but the result of “respectable scientific journals not accepting to discuss the matter”.
她認為，實驗室洩漏假說在很多地方被否決，並不是受到川普言論的干涉，而是「備受推崇的科學期刊不接受討論此事」的結果。

### 巴黎集團的呼籲被忽視

The Paris Group, for instance, submitted a letter to The Lancet in early January signed by 14 experts from around the world calling for an open debate, arguing that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded”.
例如，巴黎集團於 1 月初向《柳葉刀》提交了一封來自世界各地的 14 位專家聯署的信函，呼籲進行公開辯論，稱「**自然起源論並沒有確鑿的論據支持，實驗室起源論不能被完全否定**」[^3]。

This does not seem contentious. But it was rejected on the basis it was “not a priority for us”.
這說法看上去沒有爭議。但它被拒絕了，理由是「它不是我們的優先待辦事項」。

When the authors queried this decision, it was reassessed and returned without peer review by editor-in-chief Richard Horton with a terse dismissal saying “we have agreed to uphold our original decision to let this go”. The authors ended up publishing their statement on a pre-print site.
當發起人還在質疑這個決定，主編理查·霍頓(Richard Horton)在未經同行評審的情況下[^4]、自行評估並退回，且簡短地駁回說「我們已經同意維持最初的決定，讓這個論點消失」。這些發起人最終在一個原稿本網站上發表了他們的聲明。

[^3]: [巴黎集團聯署文PDF](https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/covid-origins-letter/5c9743168205f926/full.pdf)，公開於2021/3/4，聯署人增加至26人 | [也刊於Jamie Metzl的個人網站，含中文翻譯](https://jamiemetzl.com/open-letter-on-fully-investigating-the-origins-of-covid-19/)

[^4]: 霍頓對資訊處理不公，從這封信可看出端倪：[An open letter to Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet regarding Mehra et al](https://www.tropicalmedicine.ox.ac.uk/news/an-open-letter-to-richard-horton-editor-of-the-lancet-regarding-mehra-et-al)，學界發起的致霍頓公開信，要求公正審核關於Covid-19的論文，已有超過180名學者聯署

----------------------

# 《柳葉刀》的偏袒

### 《柳葉刀》聯署起草人達扎克，與武漢病毒研究所的關係

Yet this is the same prestigious journal that published a now infamous statement early last year attacking “conspiracy theories suggesting that Covid-19 does not have a natural origin“. Clearly, this was designed to stifle debate.
that statement dismissing ideas the virus was not a natural occurrence.
然而，這家著名期刊在去年初、發表了現在惡名昭彰的聲明，攻擊那些「[暗示 Covid-19 沒有自然起源的陰謀論](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext)」[^5]。顯然，這是為了扼殺辯論。

It was signed by 27 experts but later turned out to have been covertly drafted by Peter Daszak, the British scientist with extensive ties to Wuhan Institute of Virology.
它由 27 名專家簽署，但後來證明是由與武漢病毒研究所有密切關係的英國科學家[彼得·達扎克 (Peter Daszak)](https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/)[^6] 秘密起草的。

[^5]: [Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext)，Lancet於2020/2/19刊載的27人聯署

[^6]: [Peter Daszak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Daszak)，EcoHealth主席，WHO成立之病毒調查委員會成員，病毒自然起源論聯署的起草人，與[武漢病毒實驗室主任石正麗有長年合作關係](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711) | 2021/5/25一份報導指出，[佛奇親口證實，美國NIH輾轉透過EcoHealth贊助中國武漢實驗室](https://nypost.com/2021/05/25/fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wuhan-lab-denies-gain-of-function/)。| [WHO inspector has conflict of interest in Wuhan COVID probe: Prominent biologist](https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4119101) | [EcoHealth Alliance Orchestrated Key Scientists’ Statement on “natural origin” of SARS-CoV-2](https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/)

### 起源調查委員會的主席也是達扎克

To make matters worse, The Lancet then set up a commission on the origins — and incredibly, picked Daszak to chair its 12-person task force, joined by five others who signed that statement dismissing ideas the virus was not a natural occurrence.
更糟糕的是，《柳葉刀》隨後成立了一個起源調查委員會——令人難以置信的是，達扎克被選為其12人工作小組的主席，另再加上其他五名專家，曾聯署他發起的那份聲明、駁斥一切病毒非自然發生觀點。

### 《柳葉刀》過去也曾犯過大錯

Horton has been scathing about British government failures on the pandemic, even publishing a book lambasting them. Perhaps he would do well to turn his critical fire on his own journal’s failings as its 200th anniversary approaches.
霍頓一直嚴厲批評英國政府在疫情大流行方面的失敗，甚至出版了一本書痛斥他們。若把砲火轉向批評自家那本將屆滿200週年期刊的失敗經驗，或許他也能做得挺不賴。

This is, remember, the same organ that inflamed the anti-vaccine movement by promoting Andrew Wakefield’s nonsense on MMR jabs — and then took 12 years to retract the damaging paper.
記住，這家期刊背後的集團，曾宣揚安德魯·韋克菲爾德(Andrew Wakefield)針對MMR疫苗[^7]發表的胡說八道，並激起反疫苗運動——最後花了12年才撤回那份毀滅性的論文。

[^7]: [Lancet MMR autism fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud) | [The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/) | [麻疹腮腺炎德國麻疹混合疫苗爭議](https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/麻疹腮腺炎德國麻疹混合疫苗爭議)

----------------------

# 《自然》的粉飾

But it is far from alone. The Paris Group has been collecting details of dissenting scientists, whose letters or critical articles were rebuffed by key journals which include Nature and Science, another two of the world’s most influential vehicles for scientific debate.
論文遭拒的類似的例子還很多。巴黎小組一直在搜集反主流意見科學家的詳細說法，他們的信件或評論文章被重要期刊拒絕，其中包括《自然》和《科學》，另外兩家世上最具影響力的科學辯論平台。

### 病毒學家巴里克與石正麗的論文

Nature’s stance has been especially questionable. Around the same time as Daszak’s letter was printed, a statement started appearing at the top of some previously-published papers such as one on “gain of function research” by US virologist Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli, the “batwoman” expert from Wuhan, entitled “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence”.
《自然》的中立性尤其值得懷疑。大約在達扎克發表聲明同時，**一項註記開始出現在一些早已發佈的論文最上層**，例如美國病毒學家拉爾夫·巴里克 (Ralph Baric) 和來自武漢的專家，「蝙蝠女」石正麗所撰寫關於「功能增益(Gain of Function)研究」的論文， 該標題為「一組在蝙蝠間傳播，類似 SARS 的新冠病毒株顯示具有感染人類的潛力」[^8]。

This carefully-crafted note said such papers were being used as “basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing Covid-19 was engineered”, adding “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus”.
這項註記小心翼翼地聲稱，「此份論文被用作新型冠狀病毒Covid-19經過人為改造的理論基礎，然而這些理論並沒有被證實」，並補充說「沒有證據表明這是真的；科學家認為，冠狀病毒的最可能來源是野生動物。」

[^8]: [A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence](https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985)，於2015/6/12收件，刊載於2015/11/9

### RaTG13論點的瑕疵

Nature also published a landmark paper from Prof Shi and two colleagues, sent to them on the same day last January that China belatedly admitted to human transmission. This detailed the existence of a virus called RaTG13 that was taken from a horseshoe bat and stored at Wuhan Institute of Virology.
《自然》雜誌還發表了一篇代表性的論文[^9]，由石教授和兩位同事在去年1月提出，與中國慢三拍承認人類傳播可能性的聲明恰好同一天。這份論文詳細說明一種名為RaTG13的病毒的存在，取自馬蹄蝠並儲藏在武漢病毒研究所。

It was said to be the closest known relative to Sars-Cov-2 with more than 96% genetic similarity. This was highly significant since it underlined that such diseases occur in nature, yet although closely related, would have taken decades to evolve in the wild and seemed too distant to be manipulated in a laboratory.
據說該病毒有已知病毒中與 Sars-Cov-2 最接近的基因，遺傳相似性超過 96%。這是很重要的聲明，因為它強調本疾病發生源於自然界。**但儘管基因相近，在野外仍需要數十年的進化，對實驗室操作來說，兩者間差異也太大**。

[^9]: [A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2012-7)，收件日2020/1/20，發表日2020/2/3，僅相隔14天。

### 中國礦工死於呼吸道疾病，以及未公開的八種SARS病毒

Some experts were immediately suspicious over the lack of information on this new strain. The reason soon became clear: its name had been changed from another virus identified in a previous paper but — unusually for such a publication — this was not cited in Nature.
此新菌株相關資訊不足立刻讓一些專家感到懷疑。理由很快就被揭開：它的名字是從過去一篇論文中所發現的另一種病毒(BtCoV/4991，或Ra4991)更改而來[^10]，但《自然》沒有提及起事，就《自然》期刊過去做法來說，這很不尋常。

This masked a link to three miners who had died from a strange respiratory disease while clearing out bat droppings in a cave in south China, which was hundreds of miles from Wuhan but used by Shi and her colleagues to collect samples from bats.
這條被掩蓋的線索連上了三名礦工的死亡，他們在中國南方某個洞穴中清理蝙蝠糞便時，死於一種奇異的呼吸道疾病，該洞穴距離武漢數百英里，被石教授和她的同事用來收集蝙蝠樣本。[^11]

The Wuhan researchers even admitted they had eight more undisclosed Sars-like viruses from the mine. But despite a barrage of complaints that began within weeks of publication, it took Nature 10 months to publish her addendum, which only raised more questions that remain unanswered to this day.
武漢的研究人員甚至承認，還有八種未公開、類似SARS的病毒來自礦井。但是，儘管在發表後的幾週內就激起一連串的反彈，《自然》卻花了 10 個月的時間才刊出她的附錄，這些可疑之舉，其原由至今尚未明瞭。[^12]

[^10]: RaTG13病毒之RNA複製酶(RNA-dependent RNA polymerase)與2013年石教授團隊自中國雲南採樣蝙蝠身上發現之BtCoV/4991病毒相似性為100%。[Understanding the Origin of ‘BatCoVRaTG13’, a Virus Closest to SARS-CoV-2](https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0322/v2)，2020/5/20載於Preprints | [How an Indian scientist couple worked to trace origin, course of COVID-19](https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2021/06/03/how-an-indian-scientist-couple-worked-to-trace-origin-course-of-covid-19.html)，2021/6/13，採訪發現RaTG13與Ra4991關連的兩名印度學者

[^11]: [Lethal Pneumonia Cases in Mojiang Miners (2012) and the Mineshaft Could Provide Important Clues to the Origin of SARS-CoV-2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7606707/)，2020/10/20刊於NCBI | [Anylysis of Six Patients With Unknown Viruses](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6981198-Analysis-of-Six-Patients-With-Unknown-Viruses.html)，一份昆明醫科大學碩士論文，發表於2013/5

[^12]: [附錄](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2951-z)，於2020/11/19追加

----------------------

# 《自然醫學》的《Sars-CoV-2的接近起源》

Nature Medicine, its sister publication, was also home for the second key commentary that set the tone in the scientific community after Daszak’s outing in The Lancet.
在達扎克代表《柳葉刀》出面後，其姊妹刊物《自然醫學》刊載了為科學界定下基調的第二篇重要評論。

“The proximal origin of Sars-CoV-2″ bluntly concluded that “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible”. Critics pointed out it was questionable to claim there was any “evidence” proving that Sars-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.
「Sars-CoV-2的接近起源」[^13]直言不諱地得出結論，「任何實驗室起源的假設，我們相信都是不合理的」。批評人士則指出，聲稱已有任何「證據」證明Sars-CoV-2未透過人為操縱，這種做法值得懷疑。

Others noted that the statement mentions the mysterious furin cleavage site — which Nikolai Petrovksy drew attention to as allowing the spike protein to bind effectively to cells in human tissues yet which is not found in the most closely-related coronaviruses — but downplays its potential significance.
其他人指出，該聲明提到了神秘的弗林蛋白酶裂解位點——曾被尼古拉·彼得羅夫克斯 (Nikolai Petrovksy) 提出，它讓刺突蛋白與人體組織中的細胞有效率結合，**然而在相近的其它冠狀病毒中未曾發現這種構造**——但聲明中淡化了其潛藏的重要性。

The statement suggests “it is likely that Sars-CoV-2-like viruses with partial or full polybasic cleavage sites will be discovered in other species”. This has not happened so far.
該聲明暗示「很可能會在其他物種中發現具有部分或全部多合性切位點的類 Sars-CoV-2 病毒」，**即便至今未曾發現過**。

[^13]: [The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9)，刊載於2020/3/17，未列出收件日。| [Questions concerning the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.26478)，刊於2020/9/3，由18名學者共撰，對《自然醫學》的接近起源說提出疑問

### 五名連署人與中國的關係

This document — whose five signatories include one expert who was handed China’s top award for foreign scientists after nearly 20 years work there, and another who is a “guest professor” for the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention — has been accessed 5.4 million times and cited almost 1,500 times in other papers.
這份文件已被訪問 540 萬次，並在其他論文中被引用近 1,500 次。文件的五名聯署人包括一名在中國工作近 20 年、並獲得「中國最傑出外國科學家」獎項的專家，一名中國疾病預防控制中心的「客座教授」。[^14]

[^14]: [W. Ian Lipkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Ian_Lipkin)，分別在2003、2016、2020贏得來自中國科學界之頭銜與獎項。[Edward C. Holmes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Holmes)，中國上海復旦大學名譽客座教授，中國北京疾病預防控制中心客座教授

### 傑若米·法拉仍採信自然起源說

It is so influential that when I emailed Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and one of The Lancet signatories, to see if his stance remained the same, he pointed me to this paper that he called “the most important research on the genomic epidemiology of the origins of this virus”.
它是如此有影響力，以至於當我給惠康信托的董事兼《柳葉刀》的簽署人之一傑若米·法拉 (Jeremy Farrar)[^15]發電子郵件，想看看他的立場是否保持不變時，他向我指出了這篇他稱之為「針對此病毒的起源最重要的遺傳流行病學研究」的論文。

[^15]: [British head of Wellcome Trust Sir Jeremy Farrar is accused of ‘chilling’ bid to stifle debate on Wuhan lab leak theory](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9681181/IAN-BIRRELL-British-head-Wellcome-Trust-accused-stifling-debate-Wuhan-lab-leak-theory.html)，記者Ian Birrell發表一篇談論Farrar立場的文章，刊於2021/6/13

### 安德森曾在信中承認實驗室的可能性

The lead author was Kristian Andersen, an immunologist at Scripps Research Institute in California who has been a very active voice on social media condemning the lab leak theory and confronting its proponents.
論文的首要作者是加州克里普斯研究所的免疫學家：克里斯蒂安·安德森，他一直在社交媒體上積極發聲，譴責實驗室洩漏理論並抗衡其支持者。

Yet the recent release of emails to Anthony Fauci exposed that Andersen had previously admitted to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director that the virus had unusual features that “(potentially) look engineered” and which are “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory”.
然而，最近所釋出一封來自安東尼·福奇的電子郵件透露[^16]，安德森此前曾向美國國家過敏症和傳染病研究所所長承認該病毒具有「（可能）經過精心設計的異常特徵」，並且「與進化論的預期不一致」。[^17]

He claimed last week the discussion was “clear example of the scientific process” but as another top scientist said to me: “What a smoking gun!”. Now Anderson’s twitter account has suddenly disappeared.
他上週聲稱，該討論單純代表「科學過程的範例」，正當另一位頂級科學家(David Baltimore)對我說出「果真罪證確鑿！」[^18]，安德森的推特帳號卻突然消失了。

[^16]: [佛奇長達3200頁的電子信件PDF](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561-leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails) | [Anthony Fauci’s Emails Reveal The Pressure That Fell On One Man](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nataliebettendorf/fauci-emails-covid-response)，登於BuzzFeedNews，刊登時間2021/6/1

[^17]: [Kristian Andersen, Scientist Fauci Emailed, Defends Article Debunking Lab Leak Hypothesis](https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-emails-kristian-andersen-scientist-defends-article-debunking-lab-leak-hypothesis-1596727)，刊於2021/6/2 | [Fauci Emails Show Experts Had Concern COVID Virus Could 'Look Engineered'](https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-emails-experts-covid-could-look-engineered-1596738)，刊於2021/6/2

[^18]: [Reddit討論](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/nvvb6i/leading_biologist_dampens_his_smoking_gun_covid/) | 來源報導-[Leading biologist dampens his ‘smoking gun’ Covid lab leak theory](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/09/leading-biologist-dampens-his-smoking-gun-covid-lab-leak-theory?)，刊於2021/6/9

----------------------

# 穿山甲是個假議題

There are many more examples. For instance, China pointed the finger at animals sold at the Huanan Seafood Market two days after admitting there was human transmission of the virus.
還有很多很多例子。 例如，承認病毒會在人與人之間傳播兩天後，中國開始指責華南海鮮市場出售的動物。[^19]

Within weeks, four manuscripts describing a pangolin virus with a similar spike receptor-binding domain to Sars-Cov-2 were submitted to journals, all relying heavily on data published by one group of Chinese scientists the previous year. Two of these papers on pangolin coronaviruses were run by Nature.
幾週內，四篇描述穿山甲病毒的手稿被提交給期刊[^20]，這些手稿皆重度依賴單一中國科學團隊2019年發表的數據，其中兩篇關於穿山甲冠狀病毒的論文發表在《自然》期刊。

Inevitably, the articles sparked intense global discussion over whether pangolins sold at the market were the missing zoonotic link between bats and human beings, similar to civet cats with the first Sars epidemic.
想當然爾，這些文章引起全球熱議，市場上出售的穿山甲、是否就是蝙蝠與人類之間人畜傳染的消失環節，就像果子狸之於首次SARS大流行。

The pangolin link was a false trail laid from China. Nature, however, rejected a submission from another key scientific dissident that showed how all four papers primarily used samples from the same batch of pangolins and that key data was inaccurately reported in two of these papers.
穿山甲是中國佈下的假線索。然而，《自然》雜誌拒絕了另一個關鍵異議所提交的文章，**批評這四篇論文主要使用的是同一批穿山甲的樣本，且其中兩篇論文報告的關鍵數據並不確實**。[^21]

Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University, argues that such tolerance of “material omissions and material misstatements” expose a massive issue.
羅格斯大學生物安全專家兼化學生物學教授理查德·埃布萊特（Richard Ebright）認為，這種對「明顯遺漏和明顯錯報」的漠視，暴露出重大的問題。[^22]

“Nature and The Lancet played important roles in enabling, encouraging, and enforcing the false narrative that science evidence indicates Sars-CoV-2 had a natural-spillover origin points and the false narrative that this was the scientific consensus”.
「《自然》和《柳葉刀》成為支持、鼓勵和執行錯誤證據描述的關鍵角色，暗示Sars-CoV-2可能源自於自然界的意外，並佯裝這些陳述是科學界的共識。」

Or as another well-placed observer put it: “The game seems to be for Nature and The Lancet to rush non-peer revised correspondences to set the tone and then delay critical papers and responses.”
或者，就像某位出色的觀察家所言，「這場對決就只是看《自然》和《柳葉刀》為了鞏固立場，讓一些未經同行審查的附和言論匆忙上陣，然後推遲重要的批判和迴響。」

[^19]: [中国疾控中心在武汉华南海鲜市场检出大量新型冠状病毒](http://www.xinhuanet.com/2020-01/27/c_1125504355.htm)，中國新華網報導，刊於2020/1/27

[^20]: [Identifying SARS-CoV-2-related coronaviruses in Malayan pangolins](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2169-0)，刊於《自然》，收件日2020/2/7，公開日3/26 | [Isolation of SARS-CoV-2-related coronavirus from Malayan pangolins](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2313-x)，刊於《自然》，收件日2020/2/16，公開日5/7 | [Structural and Genetic Analysis of Coronaviruses Spike Proteins Suggest Pangolin as a Proximate Intermediate Host of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)](https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0022/v1)，刊於Preprints，收件日2020/4/30，公開日5/2 | [Pangolin homology associated with 2019-nCoV](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.19.950253v1)，2020/2/20刊於bioRxiv

[^21]: [COVID-19: Time to exonerate the pangolin from the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567134820303245)，於2020/6/21收件，發表於2020/8/5

[^22]: [Richard Ebright](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Ebright)，[於2020/4/4於推特上批判穿山甲為媒介的報導](https://twitter.com/r_h_ebright/status/1246245488892039170)

----------------------

# 中國對科學出版的影響力

### 《自然》、《柳葉刀》的財金壓力

But why would they do this? This is where things become even murkier. Allegations swirl that it was not down to editorial misjudgement, but something more sinister: a desire to appease China for commercial reasons.
但他們為何這麼做？這就是使真相更加捉摸不清的地方。指控強調，這不單純是編輯層面的誤判，而是某種更險惡的意圖：出於商業利益去討好中國。

The Financial Times revealed four years ago that debt-laden Springer Nature, the German group that publishes Nature, was blocking access in China to hundreds of academic articles mentioning subjects deemed sensitive by Beijing such as Hong Kong, Taiwan or Tibet.
[《金融時報》四年前披露](https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/ecohealth-alliance-orchestrated-key-scientists-statement-on-natural-origin-of-sars-cov-2/)，負債累累的德國自然出版集團施普林格·自然 (Springer Nature) 擋下中國訪客瀏覽其數百篇學術文章，這些文章皆提及北京認為敏感的主題，例如香港、台灣或西藏。

China is also spending lavishly around the world to win supremacy in science — which includes becoming the biggest national sponsor of open access journals published by both Springer Nature and Elsevier, owner of The Lancet.
中國也在全球各地大手筆投入，以贏得凌駕於科學領域的地位——其中包括、**成為施普林格·自然集團和[愛思唯爾公司](https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-announces-the-opening-of-its-office-in-beijing-and-a-number-of-key-strategic-initiatives-in-china)(Elsevier，《柳葉刀》的所有者）所共同出版開放期刊的最大國家贊助商**。

One source estimated that 49 sponsorship agreements between Springer Nature and Chinese institutions were worth at least $10m last year.
一位消息人士估計，**去年施普林格·自然與中國機構之間的 49 項贊助協議價值至少為 1000 萬美元**。

These deals cover the publishing fees authors would normally pay in such journals, so they smooth the path for Chinese authors while creating a dependency culture.
這些交易涵蓋了作者向此類期刊支付的出版費，因此在製造財務依賴同時，也為中國作者鋪平了道路。

They have worked well for both sides: they offer the publishers access to the surging Chinese market and its well-resourced universities, while offering international recognition and status in return.
這些手法對雙方都有利：方便出版商進入蓬勃發展的中國市場、及其資源豐富的大學，並以國際認可和地位作為回報。

But we know President Xi Jinping demands compliance with his world view, even from foreign-owned companies — and especially on an issue as sensitive as his nation’s possible role in unleashing a global catastrophe.
但我們知道，習近平主席向來要求別人服從他的世界觀，即便外資公司也不例外——尤其是他的國家在引發全球災難中可能扮演的角色，這樣的敏感議題。

### 科學出版已經成為一個高度政治化的行業

Critics fear these corporate links to China compromise output and distort agendas. “Scientific publishing has become a highly politicised business,” argues Petrovksy.
批評人士擔心，這些企業與中國的關係會損害並扭曲客觀的意圖。「科學出版已經成為一個高度政治化的行業，」彼得羅夫克斯說。

“Clearly there needs to be an international investigation launched into the role of scientific publishers, their increasingly powerful influence as the major publishing houses buy out many of the smaller independent journals, together with their growing politicisation and susceptibility to overt influence.
「顯然，需要對科學出版商所扮演的角色展開國際調查，隨著大型出版商陸續收購許多較小的獨立期刊，這些人的影響力越來越大，使其日益政治化和對公開審閱內容造成影響。」

We need to examine what impact this may have had in the pandemic and what impact it could have on science in the future.”
「我們需要詳細檢視這種影響在疾病大流行中扮演什麼角色，以及它可能對未來的科學產生何種衝擊。」

Certainly it is valid to ask where was the real conspiracy in this tawdry saga that has stained so many reputations?
我們當然可以問，在這個已經玷污大量聲譽的俗氣劇碼之中，真正的陰謀在哪裡？