Slack / Private Message Drop — page 119

Don't get me wrong, I want serious revenge on this. I spent much of the night plotting schemes. But, we need to absolutely take the moral high ground all the way through this. [2020-07-29 14:29:49] [Andrew Rambaut] It also occurs to me that whoever in the meeting leaked it may not have intended it to get out and was just gossiping to his mate. A careful move keeping the meeting participants onside could be good. [2020-07-29 14:40:56] [Robert Garry] We've got that high ground, but there are probably many more than a few in the Old Coronavirus Guard that don't like us "interlopers" getting so much positive attention [Cohen article a case in point] and have had enough. Looking down from the other side it actually does piss me off that curefinder - class clown and the worse grad student in history - was able to lie his way into a position as virus expert on national teevee [karma is a bear though]. Agree with Andrew that the leaker may not be nefarious - just a gossiper - the info just got into the hands of one or a few of the righteously pissed off. I agree informing the meeting participants - even if they are not all exactly "happy" with us - would be a decent move. [2020-07-29 14:42:38] [Eddie Holmes] Possible I guess. Any email from Jeremy should just be passive and just say remember it was confidential. It is also striking that we have not had one email, phone call of complaint from any on the call (or anyone else for that matter) about the paper. Nothing. The only moans we have had are from the lab escape mob. [2020-07-29 15:59:25] [Kristian Andersen] How's this for a first draft: Dear Clare, We wanted to alert you to this anonymous email that was shared with us from a reputable journalist. The email makes several serious allegations about the research ethics of our "Proximal Origin" paper that we submitted to Nature a while back. The libelous allegations are false and we are taking this matter very seriously. The anonymous emailer (let's call the person RB) names you and your journal and describes several private and confidential details about the review process. We believe that RB is either Reviewer 2 of our paper, or Reviewer 2 shared confidential information with RB. There are no other explanations for how RB could have obtained this information, except for a breach of the peer review process - we have not shared any of the peer review details put forward by RB. The libelous accusations put forward by RB includes confidential details about private meetings held via secure lines involving senior US and UK officials/scientists on a topic that is highly sensitive. In addition to this, RB (and Reviewer 2, if RB is not Reviewer 2) also breached the confidentiality of the peer review process. We are sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but given how serious a matter this is, we have no choice. We look forward to hearing back from you on how we may resolve this matter. Please let us know if you have any questions. We are available for a phone call if that would be helpful. Best, Kristian and Eddie [2020-07-29 16:02:19] [Kristian Andersen] ... let me get this on a Google Doc... [2020-07-29 16:03:25] [Kristian Andersen] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lMm6tD1L7a7yz6FFyhaY95y30Dl7Zkg26wqsm6SYnaI/edit?usp=sharing