I understand why reputable polls are using "covid was created in a lab" as a conspiracy theory/misinformation test, but at the same time it feels like a throwback to the infamous 2015 poll showing that over 80% of Americans support “mandatory labels on foods containing DNA"... https://twitter.com/benswasey/status/1344318908019470344

These polls can set unintentional traps for people who do not have strong scientific literacy (which does not equate to stupidity). 2015, I was hearing that 80% of Americans wanted labels on foods containing DNA, but was rightly chastised by a friend.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/17/over-80-percent-of-americans-support-mandatory-labels-on-foods-containing-dna/

These polls should keep average scientific literacy in mind and attach explanations or exclude options that are too challenging or nuanced to clearly explain to participants in a brief survey.

In this poll, why not rephrase as "covid is an intentionally released bioweapon"?

That option would literally be a theory of a conspiracy to release a bioweapon - unequivocally classifying it as a conspiracy theory.

Instead, the term "created in a lab" is imo quite ambiguous. Even scientists don't agree where "creation" begins...

Threw together a quick diagram of different SARS-CoV-2/covid origins and I'm going to use this to explain why the terms "created in a lab" or "manmade" are (1) loaded, (2) not specific, even for scientists - so I discourage further use of these terms in polls or public discourse.

When you ask someone whether they think covid was created in a lab or manmade, some people may envision a HIV-SARS hybrid or some other Frankenstein lab concoction, which places it far far D on the spectrum. This isn't even what most scientists are considering right now.

It's this impression of scientific madness that makes some scientists afraid of talking about potential lab origins. I am afraid that people will run off screaming that SARS2 was a bioweapon made of HIV and SARS if I even so much as say that lab-based scenarios are plausible.

The bracket that could be arguably considered as "created in a lab" or "manmade" extends as far as C - more virus is being produced and studied in the lab, in cells or animals.

But this could be debated by others as not "manmade" enough, like a banana is not "manmade".

Therefore, if polls want to discuss lab origins in general, I strongly advocate that you use "covid originated from a lab/research-based activities" instead of "covid was created in a lab".

On the other end, you could use "covid was an intentionally engineered human pathogen".

If I had participated in this poll for example, I would have been right smack in "I don't know" land. And probably written an essay next to the question about how this terminology is too ambiguous and loaded.

I would like to hazard my first twitter poll - about the origins of SARS-Cov-2/covid, asking participants which scenarios they think are possible (A, B, C, and/or D) using this diagram:

Based on the diagram in the previous tweet, which covid/SARS-CoV-2 origins scenarios do you think are possible - let's say, more than 1% chance of the scenario being the true origins story of the virus?

The reason why I didn't do every combo of A, B, C, and D is because I perceive these to be escalating in lab/research-based interactions with viruses. If you think D is possible, I don't see why you'd think A doesn't even have 1% chance of being the true SARS2 origin scenario.

Just want to reassure participants of the poll - I cannot see who voted for what. I can see the total votes, the distribution of the votes, how many people RT'ed the poll, how many people interacted with the poll etc., but I cannot match user IDs to poll answers.