Comment by Holden Thorp

Editor-in-Chief of the Science family of journals
The first is a letter published in our commentary section in May 2021 from prominent researchers in the area of COVID-19 origins, led by virologist, Jesse Bloom. This letter called for a thorough investigation of a lab origin of COVID-19. When we published it, I wrote that, "Good science requires that the laboratory escape be rigorously investigated before being ruled out. China should allow for a dispassionate examination of the data and allow scientists to do what they are trained to do." The publication of this letter turned the tide in the discussion of COVID origins toward considering the possibility of a lab origin, and I stand firmly by this sentiment today. I also want to highlight two papers from virologists Michael Worobey and Jonathan Pekar, published in our research section in 2022. These papers present geospatial and genetic information that support, but do not conclusively prove, the theory of natural origin.
AI Verified (Apr 16, 2024)
Like Share on X 2h ago
Policy proposals and claims
abstains
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote is directly about the statement’s core issue—whether COVID-19 came from a lab-related incident or a natural origin. In source context, Thorp says a lab-origin hypothesis should be rigorously investigated and that he still stands by that view, while also saying later papers support but do not conclusively prove natural origin. That combination makes his stance on the complete statement determinable as an evidentiary/uncertain position rather than a merely adjacent comment. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118hhrg55454/html/CHRG-118hhrg55454.htm)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified He does not endorse lab origin as the actual answer. In the quote he says a lab origin should be "rigorously investigated" and that natural-origin papers only "support, but do not conclusively prove" spillover; in the hearing context he also agreed there is "no certainty" and that "both are still plausible." That is an explicitly undecided position on the statement. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118hhrg55454/pdf/CHRG-118hhrg55454.pdf)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The passage appears verbatim in Holden Thorp's oral statement in the GovInfo HTML hearing transcript, including the Jesse Bloom/lab-origin passage and the sentence about Worobey and Pekar's papers. The House hearing page and Thorp's written testimony identify Holden Thorp as the witness, and both the hearing page and the transcript body date the hearing/testimony to April 16, 2024; GovInfo's cover/front-matter shows April 17, 2024, but the stored date matches the actual hearing date shown elsewhere in the official record. ([govinfo.gov](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118hhrg55454/html/CHRG-118hhrg55454.htm)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
replying to Holden Thorp