<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>baryphonic</author><text>A conflict of interest does not depend on whether a person actually gains (or prevents himself from losing) anything, but whether he has some personal interest (such as fame, money, even gifts for a family member, etc.) that coexists with some duty-bound interest to some other party&amp;#x2F;society (e.g. fiduciary duty, professional ethical duties, etc.), and the person is entrusted with making a decision that implicated either interest depending on the outcome. Conflicts of interest are usually resolved either by disclosure or isolation from the adverse interest.&lt;p&gt;In this case, Fauci has sort of a small, debatable conflict. His personal stake is not money per se, but his reputation and clear preference for gain-of-function research. If it came out that gain-of-function research caused the pandemic, and Fauci was one of the leading cheerleaders for that since the early aughts AND Fauci may have provided some of the funding for this particular research, then Fauci would stand to lose quite a bit of reputation and standing. That&amp;#x27;s a real adverse incentive to determine that lab leak of a gain-of-function virus is not possible.&lt;p&gt;If his job is to share his opinion to the public, then he has a conflict of interest with respect to that decision, since the public doesn&amp;#x27;t know if Fauci-the-expert is talking or Fauci-the-reputation-seeking-bureaucrat. If he had merely disclosed any of his involvement with restarting funding of gain-of-function research in 2017 or his past advocacy for gain-of-function research, that would significantly resolve the conflict.&lt;p&gt;In my opinion, Fauci is simply an opportunistic bureaucrat and a liar (I repeat myself), and the conflict of interest claim against him is weak. Peter Daszam has much, much more problematic conflicts of interest. This is a guy who (1) discredited fellow scientists in the Lancet for considering an alternative hypothesis and (2) led a sham WHO investigation into the WIV lab, all while funneling NIH grant money to WIV, not complying with disclosure and review requirements and standing to lose his career if gain-of-function were to be seriously discredited. It would be hard for him to be more conflicted.&lt;p&gt;Also, for what it&amp;#x27;s worth, Fauci is the highest paid federal employee. He makes more than the president. Most &amp;quot;public servants&amp;quot; make $150k&amp;#x2F;year or less. Not to mention, Fauci had also made a book deal as a result of his celebrity.</text><parent_chain><item><author>arrosenberg</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not a conflict of interest because Dr. Fauci wasn&amp;#x27;t gaining anything. The agency he is head of is specifically interested in infectious disease and has a large budget for grants. $120K per year pays for a couple plate of genetic samples and tech time to run them. Maybe in China you can run a few more for that cost, I don&amp;#x27;t know.&lt;p&gt;As head of that agency, it&amp;#x27;s also his job to share his professional opinion with the public. For this, his reward is a public servant&amp;#x27;s salary. Seriously, what&amp;#x27;s he getting here for his supposed &amp;quot;deception&amp;quot;?</text></item><item><author>harryf</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not saying it&amp;#x27;s shady to provide that funding. What I&amp;#x27;m saying is it demonstrates conflict of interest. Last year in May 5 2020 Fauci dismissed the idea that the virus came from a lab that his own organisation was providing funds to - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cbsnews.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-source-dismissal&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cbsnews.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronav...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not anything shady was happening, the conflict of interest is clear.</text></item><item><author>arrosenberg</author><text>You are getting downvoted because it&amp;#x27;s muckraking. There is nothing shady about NIAID giving a (verrrry small for this type of research) grant to a foreign research lab, which is doing research about a topic of interest. That&amp;#x27;s how you ensure the U.S. government gets a copy of the results.</text></item><item><author>harryf</author><text>It gets worse - gain of function research was banned under Obama until the ban was lifted in 2017 under Trump - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thelancet.com&amp;#x2F;journals&amp;#x2F;laninf&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9&amp;#x2F;fulltext&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thelancet.com&amp;#x2F;journals&amp;#x2F;laninf&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;PIIS1473-3...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I can’t find sources for this right now but apparently Dr Anthony Fauci played a key role in getting the ban lifted. He’s also the head of the NIAID ( &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Anthony_Fauci&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Anthony_Fauci&lt;/a&gt; ) which (apparently) is the ultimate source for all funding on gain of function research.&lt;p&gt;So the lead guy we’ve been listening to (and still are) for scientific advice on this pandemic is entangled in a massive conflict of interest.&lt;p&gt;Edit: I assume this is getting down-voted either because is sounds like conspiracy theory or just everyone has already heard it and it&amp;#x27;s not news. Fauci has already admitted having been involved in funding Wuhan - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nypost.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;25&amp;#x2F;fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wuhan-lab-denies-gain-of-function&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nypost.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;25&amp;#x2F;fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wu...&lt;/a&gt; - that on it&amp;#x27;s own should not have been something he first admitted to in May 2021, while holding such a responsible position. Looking for more sources right now...&lt;p&gt;Edit 2: In this article from December 2011 - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;opinions&amp;#x2F;a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking&amp;#x2F;2011&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;gIQAM9sNRP_story.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;opinions&amp;#x2F;a-flu-virus-risk-wor...&lt;/a&gt; - you have Fauci making the case for creating viruses in a lab;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Given these uncertainties, important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It doesn&amp;#x27;t explicitly mention gain of function but - while raising the concerns, it&amp;#x27;s arguing for research which would include gain of function. Meanwhile listening to this panel discussion which included Fauci from Nov 2017 - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.c-span.org&amp;#x2F;video&amp;#x2F;?437187-1&amp;#x2F;johns-hopkins-forum-explores-pandemic-preparedness-response&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.c-span.org&amp;#x2F;video&amp;#x2F;?437187-1&amp;#x2F;johns-hopkins-forum-e...&lt;/a&gt; ... again he&amp;#x27;s arguing for more aggressive types of research</text></item><item><author>bartart</author><text>This is the most shocking article I have ever read in my life. I&amp;#x27;d ask everyone to please read it because it is incredible.&lt;p&gt;One thing I did not realize is that US researchers who conducted gain of function research tried to downplay and discredit the possibility of the virus originating from the wuhan lab. There was an anti-lab theory Lancet statement signed by scientists, and &amp;quot;Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Plus there&amp;#x27;s all the stuff about the miners shoveling bat poop for weeks and then dying of coronaviruses, and the Wuhan institute collecting and doing gain of function research on these similar-to-SARS samples. And then several of the lab&amp;#x27;s gain of function researchers became ill in late 2019. And there&amp;#x27;s the weird renaming of samples to hide the unmatched closeness of the mine samples and covid. This is just the absolute surface of the article. There&amp;#x27;s too much to list here&lt;p&gt;Edit: here&amp;#x27;s another amazement for the list: &amp;quot;Shi Zhengli herself had publicly acknowledged that, until the pandemic, all of her team’s coronavirus research — some involving live SARS-like viruses — had been conducted in less secure BSL-3 and even BSL-2 laboratories.&amp;quot; And the article says &amp;quot;BSL-2 [is] roughly as secure as an American dentist’s office.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins</title><url>https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>warlog</author><text>But it could be perceived as a conflict of interest, and that of itself is the reason to at least declare it (for transparency). This is how it works in ethics.</text><parent_chain><item><author>arrosenberg</author><text>It&amp;#x27;s not a conflict of interest because Dr. Fauci wasn&amp;#x27;t gaining anything. The agency he is head of is specifically interested in infectious disease and has a large budget for grants. $120K per year pays for a couple plate of genetic samples and tech time to run them. Maybe in China you can run a few more for that cost, I don&amp;#x27;t know.&lt;p&gt;As head of that agency, it&amp;#x27;s also his job to share his professional opinion with the public. For this, his reward is a public servant&amp;#x27;s salary. Seriously, what&amp;#x27;s he getting here for his supposed &amp;quot;deception&amp;quot;?</text></item><item><author>harryf</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not saying it&amp;#x27;s shady to provide that funding. What I&amp;#x27;m saying is it demonstrates conflict of interest. Last year in May 5 2020 Fauci dismissed the idea that the virus came from a lab that his own organisation was providing funds to - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cbsnews.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-source-dismissal&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cbsnews.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;anthony-fauci-wuhan-lab-coronav...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Whether or not anything shady was happening, the conflict of interest is clear.</text></item><item><author>arrosenberg</author><text>You are getting downvoted because it&amp;#x27;s muckraking. There is nothing shady about NIAID giving a (verrrry small for this type of research) grant to a foreign research lab, which is doing research about a topic of interest. That&amp;#x27;s how you ensure the U.S. government gets a copy of the results.</text></item><item><author>harryf</author><text>It gets worse - gain of function research was banned under Obama until the ban was lifted in 2017 under Trump - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thelancet.com&amp;#x2F;journals&amp;#x2F;laninf&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9&amp;#x2F;fulltext&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.thelancet.com&amp;#x2F;journals&amp;#x2F;laninf&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;PIIS1473-3...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;I can’t find sources for this right now but apparently Dr Anthony Fauci played a key role in getting the ban lifted. He’s also the head of the NIAID ( &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Anthony_Fauci&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Anthony_Fauci&lt;/a&gt; ) which (apparently) is the ultimate source for all funding on gain of function research.&lt;p&gt;So the lead guy we’ve been listening to (and still are) for scientific advice on this pandemic is entangled in a massive conflict of interest.&lt;p&gt;Edit: I assume this is getting down-voted either because is sounds like conspiracy theory or just everyone has already heard it and it&amp;#x27;s not news. Fauci has already admitted having been involved in funding Wuhan - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nypost.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;25&amp;#x2F;fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wuhan-lab-denies-gain-of-function&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nypost.com&amp;#x2F;2021&amp;#x2F;05&amp;#x2F;25&amp;#x2F;fauci-admits-nih-funding-of-wu...&lt;/a&gt; - that on it&amp;#x27;s own should not have been something he first admitted to in May 2021, while holding such a responsible position. Looking for more sources right now...&lt;p&gt;Edit 2: In this article from December 2011 - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;opinions&amp;#x2F;a-flu-virus-risk-worth-taking&amp;#x2F;2011&amp;#x2F;12&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;gIQAM9sNRP_story.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;opinions&amp;#x2F;a-flu-virus-risk-wor...&lt;/a&gt; - you have Fauci making the case for creating viruses in a lab;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Given these uncertainties, important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;It doesn&amp;#x27;t explicitly mention gain of function but - while raising the concerns, it&amp;#x27;s arguing for research which would include gain of function. Meanwhile listening to this panel discussion which included Fauci from Nov 2017 - &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.c-span.org&amp;#x2F;video&amp;#x2F;?437187-1&amp;#x2F;johns-hopkins-forum-explores-pandemic-preparedness-response&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.c-span.org&amp;#x2F;video&amp;#x2F;?437187-1&amp;#x2F;johns-hopkins-forum-e...&lt;/a&gt; ... again he&amp;#x27;s arguing for more aggressive types of research</text></item><item><author>bartart</author><text>This is the most shocking article I have ever read in my life. I&amp;#x27;d ask everyone to please read it because it is incredible.&lt;p&gt;One thing I did not realize is that US researchers who conducted gain of function research tried to downplay and discredit the possibility of the virus originating from the wuhan lab. There was an anti-lab theory Lancet statement signed by scientists, and &amp;quot;Daszak had not only signed but organized the influential Lancet statement, with the intention of concealing his role and creating the impression of scientific unanimity.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Plus there&amp;#x27;s all the stuff about the miners shoveling bat poop for weeks and then dying of coronaviruses, and the Wuhan institute collecting and doing gain of function research on these similar-to-SARS samples. And then several of the lab&amp;#x27;s gain of function researchers became ill in late 2019. And there&amp;#x27;s the weird renaming of samples to hide the unmatched closeness of the mine samples and covid. This is just the absolute surface of the article. There&amp;#x27;s too much to list here&lt;p&gt;Edit: here&amp;#x27;s another amazement for the list: &amp;quot;Shi Zhengli herself had publicly acknowledged that, until the pandemic, all of her team’s coronavirus research — some involving live SARS-like viruses — had been conducted in less secure BSL-3 and even BSL-2 laboratories.&amp;quot; And the article says &amp;quot;BSL-2 [is] roughly as secure as an American dentist’s office.&amp;quot;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The lab-leak theory: inside the fight to uncover Covid-19’s origins</title><url>https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins</url></story>