The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gain of function research. I'm going to support merging here. If there is anything of use, please merge away and redirect. Ping me if you need any help with redirecting. Missvain (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Working Group[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

The Cambridge Working Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly passing mentions in sources, no evidence of in-depth significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tagged this article for ((notability)), as the sources were almost entirely passing mentions. It's not so much an organization as it is a list of signatories to an open letter. It would make sense to have an article on a group that, say, holds a series of annual conferences that receive sustained coverage in the science press. This isn't that. The only substantial coverage of this "working group" after its initial announcement was a small study that compared it with the statement issued shortly thereafter in opposition. (A sample from their conclusion: [S]cientists who are more familiar with biomedical experiments are more likely to endorse maintaining current safety protocols. The combination of weak peer effects with strong specialization effects suggests that these scientists are drawing on disciplinary knowledge in making their choice, perhaps reflecting greater familiarity with the laboratory risk mitigation techniques, and thus judge the risks as acceptable.) As they were both covered to roughly the same extent, having an article on one group but not the other violates NPOV, as does including one group merely as an afterthought in the article about the other. But neither the Cambridge Working Group nor Scientists for Science rise to the level of needing a stand-alone article. Anything that needs to be said about either can be said more usefully in a more general article about biomedical research. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject of this entry can best be described as something between a think tank and an open letter, not an organization. Since you tagged the article, I have added a number of reputable sources, including O Globo, Le Monde, Science Magazine, Forbes, Scientific American, the Guardian, Wired, Nature Magazine, CIDRAP, Vox, the New York Times, and NPR. Most of these articles mention the group as an integral part of the subject, as did the New York Magazine article, which you removed, and which I feel should be included as a reference. The group was formed informally, a number of years before it wrote its consensus statement, and it has gained attention due to the current scrutiny around the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is subject to controversy as the site of a possible biosecurity event. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the group is an integral part of the subject, then it should be described in an article on the subject. The fact that it took them a long time to issue a statement after they first started talking about it doesn't make them more worthy of note. Passing mentions and blurbs that just recycle their statement (like Wired) are not enough to build an article on. Nor do any of the sources indicate that the group, as opposed to the general question of research risk, is of continuing interest. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sources I provided. I just added a new one from Science magazine. It is untrue to say they give the group only "passing mentions and blurbs". Furthermore, the question of continuing interest would be best resolved if you reverted your deletion of one of the sources that mention them. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all of the sources (I even contributed one); my evaluation of them stands. The New York Magazine story you mention is by a non-subject-matter-expert and has had its reliability questioned (currently being debated in a slightly different context at WP:RSN). I should perhaps say that I generally prefer when articles at AfD can be improved to the point where they're kept, and I like documenting odd aspects of the scientific community: unusual research groups, niche journals, eccentric books — writing about somebody's obscure passion project can be quite emotionally satisfying. And, of course, the general topic of medical-research risk is a socially important one. If I thought the sources on the Cambridge Working Group justified telling its story as a stand-alone article, I'd be fighting tooth and nail for it. But it's my honest take that they don't. In fact, given the story that the sources do lay out, dedicating an article to it in this way raises a fundamental POV problem, which nobody has addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for reading the sources. Sorry if I insinuated that you don't understand the topic at hand. I have observed a problem with some editors with a certain POV who don't even bother to read sources supporting a contrarian POV, and then the discussion just goes nowhere, and this is a problem that is playing out in other threads. While I understand why you don't think the New York Magazine article isn't relevant here, I don't think it's fair to disqualify a reliable source based on its authorship, as it would have gone through a rigorous editorial review process. The author also wrote a book on the subject of bioweapons research by the US government, so it would be incorrect to say he doesn't understand the topic of virology, and can't write on it as a journalist. I believe the source does meet the criteria of WP:RS, though perhaps I need to create a new section, on its recent notability regarding COVID-19.

I agree that there can be a POV problem if we don't also create an entry on the "Scientists for Science" group, but I would point out to you that they were mostly created in reaction to the Cambridge Working group, and there is now some middle ground between them. Another point I would like to make to you is that I think it will become increasingly more important for Wikipedia editors to understand the different classifications of emerging infectious diseases, and that the accidental release of a virus undergoing gain of function research should not be conflated with the deliberate release of a virus constructed as a bioweapon, and consensus of the Cambridge Working Group is very valuable for making this point.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Not much sigcov, more small mentions or just standard reporting, but I think I think it is notable enough for pressurising the federal authorities to bring in the memorandum, and that it has been quoted by many scientific papers since (which if an academic individually would probably swing it).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The analogy to a group that made one position statement would be an individual academic with only one publication; such a person would almost certainly fail WP:PROF (and, for that matter, would have WP:BLP1E issues). XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to refrain from badgering the views of those who are arguing different from your view point. This is a talking shop where editors can express their views to the AFD. Each editor puts their case, and is not designed to be a personal attack on each others opinions. So far you have continued to personally challenge the arguments of the editors for Keep. It is not your place to make the decision, it will be the closer based on the arguments made. You have made your point, le others make theirs. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is anything that I've said a personal attack on anyone's opinion? I've replied to people, people have replied to me, and I've replied to them in turn. New arguments have been brought up (counting Google hits, appearances in some books, etc.), which have required additional discussion beyond my !vote above. I'm not expecting to make the final decision; I rather think this is one of those cases where the standard of sourcing that I find reasonable is higher than what the consensus settles on, and the article is eventually kept in spite of anything I say. It's happened at least once before, and it might happen again, as such is the way of things. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This group was effective in getting a moratorium on dangerous virus experimentation in 2014. But then the experiments were resumed in 2017. And now we have a novel virus causing a global pandemic. The matter has naturally attracted attention such as this at each stage and this large group of scientists seems to be a significant part of the story. I'm not finding another article on Wikipedia which covers the history of this controversy in a more general way. If there is one, the worst case would be that we merge into it. Otherwise this will have to do as a start and we should be considering expansion. WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The overall debate about how to manage the hazards of medical research could be described in, for example, Medical research. The link you provide is yet another passing mention that provides no details about the organization as an organization. Does anyone have better? XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whilst perhaps of less relevance now, the Group has a place in history at least. As a result of the COVID pandemic, people might now come to Wikipedia to find out about the Group. It therefore seems reasonable to have an article about it. Arcturus (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We can speculate all day about what people might come to Wikipedia for, but without WP:SIGCOV, we can't write an article to meet that hypothetical need. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the Google search (i.e. the link at the top of this page) delivers over 2600 results. As to what "significant coverage" means is a bit subjective. On balance, I would say this article has it. Arcturus (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Google hits is not a reliable indicator of pretty much anything. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's indicative. That's why it's included in the Find Sources facility. I did say it was subjective. Anyway, just out of interest, and off-topic in a direct sense, but when I looked through Google Scholar results I found this one: [1]. Arcturus (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's included in the "Find sources" tool because it's a way to find sources, not because counting the total number is helpful (usually, it isn't, which is why it's literally listed at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Forbes "contributor" pieces are not reliable sources, since even when written by subject-matter experts they have no editorial oversight — and oversight and review matter even more for medicine than for most subjects. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have given the impression that the Forbes article was relevant to the discussion - as I said, it's off topic. However, some contributors here might find it interesting, that's all. Anyway, check out the contributor [2] and then have a look at what Wikipedia says about subject-matter experts at Forbes. Arcturus (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Biotechnology risk. From what I can see reading the sources (e.g. this one [3]), the actual notable topic here is the scientific and public debate about benefits and dangers of gain-of-function research in life sciences. Section Biotechnology risk#Regulation addresses the matter rather briefly but it really deserves to be substantially expanded or perhaps an extra section added in that article. Both groups, The Cambridge Working Group and Scientists for Science, ought to be mentioned there. However, from the sources discussed so far (and from those that I myself have been able to find), I do not see the amount and depth of coverage of the CWG as sufficient to justify a standalone article about it. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my comment, after the close has been reversed, to merge to Gain of function research#Biorisk concern, which is a new article, created after the start of this AfD, which looks like a more plausible merge target here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The group is visible and covered not only in Science (journal) ([4]) and news, but even in books [5]. Importantly, it includes a number of high-profile scientists we have pages about (see here and list on the page). Yes, it is obviously related to Biotechnology risk, however, this is a specific organization that seems to be sufficiently notable by itself for a standalone page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of those Google Books hits are false positives, even predating the actual announcement of the "working group" (which, again, was more an open letter than an organization). The rest appear to be the same kind of brief, passing mentions that we've already seen. One news story that does little more but state they exist is not WP:SIGCOV, and supplementing it with a smattering of name-drops doesn't exactly help. Why should Wikipedia say more about this group than anyone else? XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what do we have about this organization (no, this is not a letter, but an organization)?

1. First four books (link above) mention this organization in a meaningful way, fifth book is not about it; I did not check other books.
2. Article in Science ([6])
3. Article in PNAS (Disparate foundations of scientists’ policy positions on contentious biomedical research), and it mentioned this organization as important.
4. This article tells: "The debates continued into 2014 and a series of significant biosafety lapses at U.S. government laboratories spurred different groups of scientists to organize to provide a collective expression of their views about the implications for what had now become known as “gain-of-function” (GOF) research.16 One group, called the Cambridge Working Group after its founding meeting at Harvard University, issued a consensus statement in July focused solely on biosafety concerns that recommended: "For any experiment, the expected net benefits should outweigh the risks. ..." etc. This statement was soon followed by a competing statement from another new group, Scientists for Science, which argued "Scientists for Science are confident that biomedical research on potentially dangerous pathogens can be performed safely..." etc.
5. Forbes: [7]
6. this
7. [8] - an article in The Lancet.
8. this article
9. And so on. I am tired to count. My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first four books. None of them give details about the organization as an organization. Books three and four give them parity with Scientists for Science, indicating that the two groups should not be described in separate articles and that the later should not be treated as a footnote to the former, but rather, that both are part of the story of a legitimate scientific debate. The article in Science is a short news item that notes the CWG's existence. The article in PNAS is one that I found and added to the page the other day; like the book mentions, it indicates parity of significance between CWG and SFS. It's probably the best source of the bunch, and it tells us to write about the two groups together as part of the larger story. The Forbes item is a "contributor" piece; it might have some value as an self-published source by a subject-matter expert, but it's also WP:PRIMARY, because the author is a signatory of the Cambridge Working Group. The CIDRAP story is OK, but its focus is on the Scientists For Science. Again, at best, it's evidence for merging this tiny part into the larger whole where it fits better. The Lancet story allocates one sentence to the CWG itself and quotes founding member Marc Lipsitch once. Nothing wrong with that, but it also says nothing meaningful about the CWG as an organization. Source #8 is coauthored by Lipsitch and is WP:PRIMARY. Applying our everyday standards for when to write an article about an organization and when to discuss a small topic as part of a larger one, the available sources make it plain that the CWG doesn't need an article. Write about it at Biotechnology risk or Medical research. A dedicated, stand-alone article is simply suboptimal, and whatever deserves to be said can be rewritten from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To perhaps clarify: when I say that the sources don't detail the organization "as an organization", I mean that scientific organizations do things like hold conferences, where papers are presented that are then published as proceedings volumes or special issues of peer-reviewed journals; they get funding by securing grants; they may conduct research or re-distribute their funds to support research elsewhere. The sources presented so far have been noticeably light about any details of that sort. Instead, we get a position statement, and various quotes from people affiliated with it. That's fine in principle and could all be useful somewhere, but it's not organizational information. XOR'easter (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), tells: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement: A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,..." [this is just an example, obviously]. There is indeed a hugely significant controversy/dispute, with regard to which views by this organization were discussed (rather than simply mentioned) in multiple 3rd party RS, such as Science, PNAS, etc. Hence my vote. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:NORG: Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company. That's more or less the situation we're in with this. The coverage is of the scientific/ethical controversy, not so much the CWG as an entity. What meetings did the CWG hold? Did it acquire grants as a group effort? What, beyond issuing a statement, did it do? Et cetera. XOR'easter (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company". OK, but in this case the entire organization was created to advocate a specific public policy position, and the publications are focusing on this organization as advocating such position. Saying that, I agree this is a borderline notability and would not worry if this page will be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have looked at the sources, both included in the article and some mentioned above, as well as conducting a WP:BEFORE search. I see nothing that specifically brings this group notability outside any other activist group that made for a single purpose. Some are notable and some are not. The question remains, does the specific subject, the entity, receive significant coverage, not of its ideas but of the entity itself, in multiple, not numerical but those in which a wide range of view points is discussed, reliable and independent secondary sources? Nothing in the notability guideline WP:N states that a thousand mentions equal a significant coverage, in fact, it reflects the exact opposite. Mentions are not stackable nor do they build to notability. The entity fails notability. If there is an appropriate redirect or merge I would not be opposed to such action. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This group and what it stands for represents one of the most pressing global issues in decades. Given sarscov2 and the devastating global effects of the virus, one must pause to consider their wisdom. These events are of course not trivial and I am shocked that any reference to this group is deleted. Strong keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyanja (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Garyanja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete — this is a letter that has received brief coverage in the news in the past. Per Tsistunagiska, I believe the content contained in this article is noteworthy, but the "Group" itself is not. I think some portion of the content here should be merged to Gain of function research. -Darouet (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion was previously closed as "keep". The close was analyzed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 2 and was self-evidently unacceptable. I have reverted it and relisted for a clean discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable organisation failing WP:NORG. There's a lot of ref bombing but many of the refs don't even mention this "Cambridge Working Group". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy with any merge/redirect outcomes as well. The article should be deleted, and merging some of its content elsewhere and creating a redirect to that page is entirely compatible with this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Admittedly a cursory search, but I couldn't see that the group had, well, done any work... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the material here is essentially interesting, but the article overall is problematic. The title of the group named is little enough used that the article risks falling foul of our rule against neologisms, quite apart from the high bar WP:NORG sets that I don't think the article has a chance of clearing. I think the task that faces us is to find a better home for this material. I note the article Moratorium on Research Intended To Create Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens by Lipsitch and Inglesby coins the term Potential Pandemic Pathogens for the specific concern they have, to distiunguish the heightened concern they have compared to prior gain-of-function work. A GScholar search for that term does not yield many highly cited results, though: two clear the 50 gscholhits bar, one by Lipsitch and a coauthor, one with Nassim Nicholas Taleb and a coauthor. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC) (Postscript there is RS-quality media coverage of the group under the article's name, so point about neologisms retracted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Weak Delete - it's a notable group, with lots of coverage and even has Professor Lockdown as a member. As per editor Chalst the "Moratorium on Research To Create Potential Pandemic Pathogens" concept is even more noteable. But I'd prefer plain deletion to merging on IAR grounds: CWG is often referred to in arguments advancing the lab leak "theory". Regardless of how credible one finds the idea, theres several reasons why wikipedians might not like our platform to be used to support that position. If it was widely believed, it would inevitably result in more ill will towards innocent Chinese & Chinese looking people. Also, now the vaccines are out, biotech is supposed to the hero of the Covid story. If it was widely believed the pandemic arose from an artificially enhanced (gain of function) virus escaping from a certain lab, it might hurt not just public trust in biotech, but in science itself. And we can't have that can we? I mean, we scientists are pure as the driven snow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: I am Chinese and I don’t believe that deleting this encyclopedia worthy article will save my people from malice. Most rational people understand that not all people of Chinese appearance are responsible for the Communist Party of China's actions, which could include covering up the root cause of COVID-19. To your point about the purity of scientists, George F. Gao said at the Gain of Function Symposium back in 2014, that scientists are human beings, and sometimes they want to hide things [9], which could be what is happening here. Fangpila (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC) — Fangpila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Other than us both appreciating good professor Gao, I fear we have too different perspectives for us to reach agreement on these matters, at least not without very long discussion. But coming from someone like yourself, these words have much weight and make me doubt elements of my thinking. So thank you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as contrary to what Alexandermcnabb, ProcrastinatingReader and Chalst say, CWG was formed as a group to sign a consensus statement, not to do work. The Le Monde and O GLOBO references give more than just passing mention. The more recent mentions are also more than passing. Fangpila (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC) — Fangpila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's always nice to see a new user familiar with Arbcom after having made only a couple of edits, even if they are revolving around the same topic. Getting to grips with things quickly! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is just not true. The sources in relation to this Group, including those two, are literally namedrops. Those two don't even discuss the group, they discuss something else and mention the group in passing. They don't even come close to demonstrating GNG never mind WP:NORG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gain of function research. I looked at the first 11 sources in the article. The sources weren't in depth at all. In my opinion, not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. A paragraph or two about the Cambridge Working Group could be added to the article Gain of function research. That seems like a good spot for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to new section in Gain of function research, perhaps 2015 moratorium on research synthesising novel potential pandemic pathogens. I think the sources as they stand do not defeat the verifiability concerns raised by XOR'easter: we can't as it stands write an encyclopediac article on the group. The material is interesting, though, and I would prefer that we did not lose it. Having the target be to do with the moratorium would help resist the slanted coverage feared by FeydHuxtable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or Merge. On the basis of the group's public impact. and the coverage in the books, it would justify a separate article, but it may be more, not less visible and useful as a. section of gain of function research--except for the usual problem, of the WP article not showing up in the Googles. I do not think that should influence us--we're making an encyclopedia, not content for Google. . In either case, it would be appropriate and necessary to include information about the opposition to the group, which will deal with the question of nPOV. . The discussion above seems to have gotten entwined in the discussion of other issues, bu the problem of Covid-like pandemics (or worse) was very real before Covid . DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @DGG: could you elaborate on which WP:NORG-meeting 'coverage in books' you refer to? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I heard about the group in Senate testimony during the questioning of Dr Fauci about gain of function research with regard to Covid-19. It's an important topic and it was nice to be able to find a relevant article. 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.