Chat message

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

1. 2020-07-29 12:50 Kristian G. Andersen
   Okay, so I have pretty much settled on us needing to contact Nature - it's the right thing to do. We should alert themto the problem, make it clear that they have divulged private and confidential information from the review process (and implicated high-ranking US officials) in a factually wrong narrative about a scientific study on a sensitive subject. We will mention that we have strong reason to believe that we know the identity of the person, but that wewill not identify him - but that he is either reviewer 2 himself, or received (confidential) information from reviewer 2.What I'm less certain about is whether this should be supplemented with a 'friendly' and carefully crafted email toBaric's Proton email alerting him to the issues ( (1) releasing private and confidential information on a sensitive subject, (2) implicating high-ranking US officials in a meeting that may or may not have occurred, (3) writing libel withdefamatory and incorrect statements about a scientific study). We would not name Ralph in the email, but thank him for his "many important scientific contributions to SARS and SARS2, including GoF, which we believe to be criticallyimportant work"). We'd suggest that he refrain from pushing his libel any further and that we would also not go any further to keep the focus on the science and outbreak response (but make it clear that we contacted the journal already). The purpose of the email would be to stop him from going any further with this. Our enquiry to Nature could achievethe same, assuming Clare would contact Reviewer 2 with the concerns raised. I might prefer that option, but I wantto leave the other option on the table too in case we need it.Thoughts?
2. 2020-07-29 13:26 Robert F. Garry open
   Contacting Nature is the right thing to do. They will have little recourse other than to contact Reviewer #2 andfiguratively rap her or him on the knuckles. I'd include the E/K email, which responds to the libelous accusationsdecisively, but not name Jon Cohen. Responding to the protonmail is less obvious - it would be satisfying, but - trustme on this one - Deep Throat is already convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she is doing the right thing even if it means breaking every rule of confidentiality and peer review. Furthermore, even though the E/K emailoutline responds to the libelous accusations decisively, when Cohen shares it with DT [I think JC will] it will just beencouraging. Facts will be selectively extracted from the E/K email to confirm DT's pre-existing narrative.
3. 2020-07-29 13:32 Andrew Rambaut open
   I would be against sending anything to DT directly as satisfying as it could be in the short term.
4. 2020-07-29 13:33 Edward C. Holmes open
   I agree. An email from all of us to Clare is the 1st thing to do.
5. 2020-07-29 13:34 Edward C. Holmes open
   I also think Jeremy should email everyone on the call to tell them about the leak.

Full conversation →