Thanks for posting that! The grant was interesting. Specific aims page is down on page 107 to save others who want to read it some time.
One of their main hypotheses they wanted to test
was that covid viruses they found in animals in the Wuhan market would have greater fitness than those found in wild animals due to spillover between multiple species and other differences in the environment, which in light of current events seems a reasonable hypothesis.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Yes. EcoHealth received $3.7m from the NIH, $600,000 of which was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699
Full grant document: https://theintercept.com/document/2021/09/08/understanding-the-risk-of-bat-coronavirus-emergence/
Thanks for posting that! The grant was interesting. Specific aims page is down on page 107 to save others who want to read it some time.
One of their main hypotheses they wanted to test was that covid viruses they found in animals in the Wuhan market would have greater fitness than those found in wild animals due to spillover between multiple species and other differences in the environment, which in light of current events seems a reasonable hypothesis.