What Follows from Lab Leak?
Does it matter whether SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab in Wuhan or had natural zoonotic origins? I think on the margin it does matter.
First, and most importantly, the higher the probability that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab the higher the probability we should expect another pandemic.* Research at Wuhan was not especially unusual or high-tech. Modifying viruses such as coronaviruses (e.g., inserting spike proteins, adapting receptor-binding domains) is common practice in virology research and gain-of-function experiments with viruses have been widely conducted. Thus, manufacturing a virus capable of killing ~20 million human beings or more is well within the capability of say ~500-1000 labs worldwide. The number of such labs is growing in number and such research is becoming less costly and easier to conduct. Thus, lab-leak means the risks are larger than we thought and increasing.
A higher probability of a pandemic raises the value of many ideas that I and others have discussed such as worldwide wastewater surveillance, developing vaccine libraries and keeping vaccine production lines warm so that we could be ready to go with a new vaccine within 100 days. I want to focus, however, on what new ideas are suggested by lab-leak. Among these are the following.
Given the risks, a “Biological IAEA” with similar authority as the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct unannounced inspections at high-containment labs does not seem outlandish. (Indeed the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are about the only people to have begun to study the issue of pandemic lab risk.) Under the Biological Weapons Convention such authority already exists but it has never been used for inspections–mostly because of opposition by the United States–and because the meaning of biological weapon is unclear, as pretty much everything can be considered dual use. Notice, however, that nuclear weapons have killed ~200,000 people while accidental lab leak has probably killed tens of millions of people. (And COVID is not the only example of deadly lab leak.) Thus, we should consider revising the Biological Weapons Convention to something like a Biological Dangers Convention.
BSL3 and especially BSL4 safety procedures are very rigorous, thus the issue is not primarily that we need more regulation of these labs but rather to make sure that high-risk research isn’t conducted under weaker conditions. Gain of function research of viruses with pandemic potential (e.g. those with potential aerosol transmissibility) should be considered high-risk and only conducted when it passes a review and is done under BSL3 or BSL4 conditions. Making this credible may not be that difficult because most scientists want to publish. Thus, journals should require documentation of biosafety practices as part of manuscript submission and no journal should publish research that was done under inappropriate conditions. A coordinated approach among major journals (e.g., Nature, Science, Cell, Lancet) and funders (e.g. NIH, Wellcome Trust) can make this credible.
I’m more regulation-averse than most, and tradeoffs exist, but COVID-19’s global economic cost—estimated in the tens of trillions—so vastly outweighs the comparatively minor cost of upgrading global BSL-2 labs and improving monitoring that there is clear room for making everyone safer without compromising research. Incredibly, five years after the crisis and there has be no change in biosafety regulation, none. That seems crazy.
Many people convinced of lab leak instinctively gravitate toward blame and reparations, which is understandable but not necessarily productive. Blame provokes defensiveness, leading individuals and institutions to obscure evidence and reject accountability. Anesthesiologists and physicians have leaned towards a less-punitive, systems-oriented approach. Instead of assigning blame, they focus in Morbidity and Mortality Conferences on openly analyzing mistakes, sharing knowledge, and redesigning procedures to prevent future harm. This method encourages candid reporting and learning. At its best a systems approach transforms mistakes into opportunities for widespread improvement.
If we can move research up from BSL2 to BSL3 and BSL4 labs we can also do relatively simple things to decrease the risks coming from those labs. For example, let’s not put BSL4 labs in major population centers or in the middle of a hurricane prone regions. We can also, for example, investigate which biosafety procedures are most effective and increase research into safer alternatives—such as surrogate or simulation systems—to reduce reliance on replication-competent pathogens.
The good news is that improving biosafety is highly tractable. The number of labs, researchers, and institutions involved is relatively small, making targeted reforms feasible. Both the United States and China were deeply involved in research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, suggesting at least the possibility of cooperation—however remote it may seem right now.
Shared risk could be the basis for shared responsibility.
Bayesian addendum *: A higher probability of a lab-leak should also reduce the probability of zoonotic origin but the latter is an already known risk and COVID doesn’t add much to our prior while the former is new and so the net probability is positive. In other words, the discovery of a relatively new source of risk increases our estimate of total risk.
Maui is Not Abundant
City Journal: A year and a half since fires devastated the historic town of Lahaina on the island of Maui, Hawaii, only six houses have been rebuilt—six out of more than 2,000.
Why is the recovery effort taking so long? Initially, the biggest hurdles were the pace of debris removal and damage litigation. Both were overcome only last month. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cleared the final lots on February 19, while the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that a $4 billion settlement for victims can begin to move forward.
The main challenge now is dealing with a crushing permitting regime that slows or outright bans construction. But local political dysfunction has discouraged state and local leaders from taking emergency action to cut through this red tape.
Many of the buildings are illegal to rebuild under the current zoning laws. CA at least exempted reconstruction from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Coastal Waters Act review.
China’s Medicines are Saving American Lives
The Economist reports that China is now the second largest producer of new pharmaceuticals, after the United States.
China has long been known for churning out generic drugs, supplying raw ingredients and managing clinical trials for the pharmaceutical world. But its drugmakers are now also at the cutting edge, producing innovative medicines that are cheaper than the ones they compete with.
… In September last year an experimental drug did what none had done before. In late-stage trials for non-small cell lung cancer, it nearly doubled the time patients lived without the disease getting worse—to 11.1 months, compared with 5.8 months for Keytruda. The results were stunning. So too was the nationality of the biotech company behind them. Akeso is Chinese.
This is exactly what I predicted in my TED talk and it’s great news! As I said then:
Ideas have this amazing property. Thomas Jefferson said “He who receives an idea from me receives instruction himself, without lessening mine. As he who lights his candle at mine receives light without darkening me.”
Now think about the following: if China and India were as rich as the United States is today, the market for cancer drugs would be eight times larger than it is now. Now we are not there yet, but it is happening. As other countries become richer the demand for these pharmaceuticals is going to increase tremendously. And that means an increase incentive to do research and development, which benefits everyone in the world. Larger markets increase the incentive to produce all kinds of ideas, whether it’s software, whether it’s a computer chip, whether it’s a new design.
Well if larger markets increase the incentive to produce new ideas, how do we maximize that incentive?
It’s by having one world market, by globalizing the world. Ideas are meant to be shared.
One idea, one world, one market.
Sadly, some of us are losing sight of the immense benefits of a global market. Another example of the great forgetting.
As Girard predicted, China’s growing similarity to the U.S. has fueled conflict and rivalry. But if managed properly, rivalry can be positive-sum. A rich China benefits us far more than a poor China—including by creating new cancer medicines that save American lives.
Hat tip: Cremieux.
Public Choice Outreach Conference!
The annual Public Choice Outreach Conference is a crash course in public choice. The conference is designed for undergraduates and graduates in a wide variety of fields. It’s entirely free. Indeed scholarships are available! The conference will be held Friday May 30-Sunday June 1, 2025, near Washington, DC in Arlington, VA. Lots of great speakers. More details in the poster. Please encourage your students to apply.
What Did We Learn From Torturing Babies?
As late as the 1980s it was widely believed that babies do not feel pain. You might think that this was an absurd thing to believe given that babies cry and exhibit all the features of pain and pain avoidance. Yet, for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, the straightforward sensory evidence was dismissed as “pre-scientific” by the medical and scientific establishment. Babies were thought to be lower-evolved beings whose brains were not yet developed enough to feel pain, at least not in the way that older children and adults feel pain. Crying and pain avoidance were dismissed as simply reflexive. Indeed, babies were thought to be more like animals than reasoning beings and Descartes had told us that an animal’s cries were of no more import than the grinding of gears in a mechanical automata. There was very little evidence for this theory beyond some gesturing’s towards myelin sheathing. But anyone who doubted the theory was told that there was “no evidence” that babies feel pain (the conflation of no evidence with evidence of no effect).
Most disturbingly, the theory that babies don’t feel pain wasn’t just an error of science or philosophy—it shaped medical practice. It was routine for babies undergoing medical procedures to be medically paralyzed but not anesthetized. In one now infamous 1985 case an open heart operation was performed on a baby without any anesthesia (n.b. the link is hard reading). Parents were shocked when they discovered that this was standard practice. Publicity from the case and a key review paper in 1987 led the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare it unethical to operate on newborns without anesthesia.
In short, we tortured babies under the theory that they were not conscious of pain. What can we learn from this? One lesson is humility about consciousness. Consciousness and the capacity to suffer can exist in forms once assumed to be insensate. When assessing the consciousness of a newborn, an animal, or an intelligent machine, we should weigh observable and circumstantial evidence and not just abstract theory. If we must err, let us err on the side of compassion.
Claims that X cannot feel or think because Y should be met with skepticism—especially when X is screaming and telling you different. Theory may convince you that animals or AIs are not conscious but do you want to torture more babies? Be humble.
We should be especially humble when the beings in question are very different from ourselves. If we can be wrong about animals, if we can be wrong about other people, if we can be wrong about our own babies then we can be very wrong about AIs. The burden of proof should not fall on the suffering being to prove its pain; rather, the onus is on us to justify why we would ever withhold compassion.
Hat tip: Jim Ward for discussion.
The Shortage that Increased Ozempic Supply
It sometimes happens that a patient needs a non-commercially-available form of a drug, a different dosage or a specific ingredient added or removed depending on the patient’s needs. Compounding pharmacies are allowed to produce these drugs without FDA approval. Moreover, since the production is small-scale and bespoke the compounded drugs are basically immune from any patent infringement claims. The FDA, however, also has an oddly sensible rule that says when a drug is in shortage they will allow it be compounded, even when the compounded version is identical to the commercial version.
The shortage rule was meant to cover rare drugs but when demand for the GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Zepbound skyrocketed, the FDA declared a shortage and big compounders jumped into the market offering these drugs at greatly reduced prices. Moreover, the compounders advertised heavily and made it very easy to get a “prescription.” Thus, the GLP-1 compounders radically changed the usual story where the patient asks the compounder to produce a small amount of a bespoke drug. Instead the compounders were selling drugs to millions of patients.
Thus, as a result of the shortage rule, the shortage led to increased supply! The shortage has now ended, however, which means you can expect to see many fewer Hims and Hers ads.
Scott Alexander makes an interesting point in regard to this whole episode:
I think the past two years have been a fun experiment in semi-free-market medicine. I don’t mean the patent violations – it’s no surprise that you can sell drugs cheap if you violate the patent – I mean everything else. For the past three years, ~2 million people have taken complex peptides provided direct-to-consumer by a less-regulated supply chain, with barely a fig leaf of medical oversight, and it went great. There were no more side effects than any other medication. People who wanted to lose weight lost weight. And patients had a more convenient time than if they’d had to wait for the official supply chain to meet demand, get a real doctor, spend thousands of dollars on doctors’ visits, apply for insurance coverage, and go to a pharmacy every few weeks to pick up their next prescription. Now pharma companies have noticed and are working on patent-compliant versions of the same idea. Hopefully there will be more creative business models like this one in the future.
The GLP-1 drugs are complex peptides and the compounding pharmacies weren’t perfect. Nevertheless, I agree with Scott that, as with the off-label market, the experiment in relaxed FDA regulation was impressive and it does provide a window onto what a world with less FDA regulation would look like.
Hat tip: Jonathan Meer.
Visits to the Doctor, Per Year
The number of times people visit the doctor per year varies tremendously across OECD countries from a low of 2.9 in Chile to a high of 17.5 (!) in Korea. I haven’t run the numbers officially but it doesn’t seem that there is much correlation with medical spending per capita or life expectancy.
Data can be found here. 
Hat tip: Emil Kirkegaard on X.
Kevin Drum, RIP
Kevin Drum was one of the OG bloggers. I never met him IRL but we know from Ibelin that that is no bar to being friends. One thing I learned from Ayn Rand is that virtue should be rewarded, not just sin punished. That’s one reason why we shouldn’t wait until someone has passed to praise their goodness. I’m glad I wrote to Kevin many years ago:
Kevin,
Thanks for your excellent blogging! I am always pleased when you link to one of my posts. I appreciate the attention, of course, but especially so because agree or disagree you have always read me fairly. Many bloggers look for the weakest or worst way that a post can be interpreted so that they can score cheap points. In contrast, I’ve always seen you take on an author’s strongest arguments. I appreciate that. Knowing how honestly and perceptively you treat my posts has also made me more attentive to all of your blogging which I read daily.
Best
Alex Tabarrok
Boettke on the Socialist Calculation Debate
An excellent EconTalk episode with Pete Boettke on the socialist calculation debate.
I like Boettke on the three Ps.
The three Ps–property, prices, and profits and loss. Property incentivizes us. Prices guide us. Profits lure us to new changes and losses discipline us.
Today, “incentives matter” is often considered the first lesson of economics. But not so in the 1930-1940s.
Yeah, it’s so weird to read 1930s economics. Hayek’s colleague, H.D Dickinson, at LSE–when he teaches his course on economics of planning, his first statement is, ‘We will truck with no incentive talk here.’ Okay. Lange, in his famous paper on socialism, says that incentives are psychological problems and therefore not economic theory.
Pete’s new book on the socialist calculation debate with Candella and Truit is very good and available here.
Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?
Elon recently re-opened the perennial debate about whether Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Here’s my, lightly edited post from 2011.
Elon is in good company calling social security a ponzi scheme. First up is Nobel prize winner Paul Samuelson who wrote:
The beauty of social insurance is that it is actuarially unsound. Everyone who reaches retirement age is given benefit privileges that far exceed anything he has paid in — exceed his payments by more than ten times (or five times counting employer payments)!
How is it possible? It stems from the fact that the national product is growing at a compound interest rate and can be expected to do so for as far ahead as the eye cannot see. Always there are more youths than old folks in a growing population. More important, with real income going up at 3% per year, the taxable base on which benefits rest is always much greater than the taxes paid historically by the generation now retired.
…A growing nation is the greatest Ponzi game ever contrived.
Samuelson wrote that in 1967 riffing off his classic paper of 1958. By “as far as the eye cannot see” he apparently meant not very far because it soon became clear that the system could not count on waves of youths or rapid productivity growth to generate the actuarially unsound returns that made the program so popular in the early years.
Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson rarely agreed on much but Friedman also called social security a Ponzi scheme. In fact, he called it The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth but perhaps Friedman is too partisan so let’s go for a third Nobel prize winner who recognizes the Ponzi like nature of social security, none other than…..Paul Krugman (writing in 1996):
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in). (ital added, AT)
Of these, I agree the most with Krugman. Social Security is not necessarily a Ponzi scheme but it only generated massive returns in the past because of its Ponzi-like aspects. The Ponzi-like aspects are now over and social security is turning into what is essentially a forced savings/welfare program with, as Krugman recognizes, crummy returns for average workers. Social security is thus a Ponzi scheme which has not gone bust but it has gone flat.
Regime Uncertainty
Robert Higgs coined the term regime uncertainty to illustrate the challenge faced by business under Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, when a flurry of unpredictable legislation such as the expansive and often unclear mandates of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), attempts at court packing, abrupt tax increases, and shifting labor policies, meant businesses couldn’t reliably forecast returns or risks. Uncertainty magnified bad policy causing investment to collapse and remain unprecedently low.
For the eleven-year period of 1930 to 1940, net private investment totaled minus $3.1 billion. Only in 1941 did net private investment ($9.7 billion) exceed the 1929 amount.
The data leave little doubt. During the 1930s, private investment remained at depths never plumbed in any other decade for which data exist.
Real options theory explains why uncertainty can reduce investment even more than predictable but unfavorable policies. Suppose you’re deciding whether to build a factory in North Carolina or South Carolina. Both locations are viable, but one of the Carolina’s might offer a tax concession—though the decision won’t be announced for six months. Even if investing immediately would still be profitable without the concession, you might choose to delay building the factory. The potential benefit of waiting (the real option) only needs to offset the costs associated with waiting. Thus, even modest uncertainty can incentivize investors to delay big investments. Recent studies confirm Higgs’ insights: spikes in uncertainty strongly correlate with declines in private investment.
Ok, so where do we stand? We are now at a greater level of uncertainty than anything over the last 40 years, barring the worst weeks of the 2008 financial crisis (updated graph as of today!). Investment has begun a modest decline. Some, very preliminary data (take with a grain of salt) are already predicting a recession.
Tariff policy is especially bad because it is uncertainty about bad events. Here are comments from the latest ISM survey (h/t Joe Weisenthal).
Much of the Trump administration’s agenda promises long-term benefits, but chaos and uncertainty threaten its success. Tariff policy, in particular, is bad economics and even worse foreign policy. Even if Trump’s tariff strategy stabilizes, global responses—and their ripple effects—remain unpredictable and with potentially severe downsides. This uncertainty could spark an economic downturn, jeopardizing the administration’s otherwise strong policies.
All of this is unnecessary. We need to get back to the best case for a Trump Presidency.
Stripe’s Annual Letter
Stripe’s Annual Letter is eminently quotable and insightful. As a payments company, Stripe has a unique data on the entire business landscape. But who else about the Collison brothers would cite the O-ring model in their annual report?
Businesses on Stripe generated $1.4 trillion in total payment volume in 2024, up 38% from the prior year, and reaching a scale equivalent to around 1.3% of global GDP.
The businesses on Stripe span every chromosome of the economic genome.
The US corporate sector is both a cradle of invention and a densely populated graveyard of companies that had fabulous futures in their pasts.
How is AI making it’s presence felt beyond chatbots?
…we started with ChatGPT, but are now seeing a proliferation of industry specific tools. Some people have called these startups “LLM wrappers”; those people are missing the point. The O ring model in economics shows that in a process with interdependent tasks, the overall output or productivity is limited by the least effective component, not just in terms of cost but in the success of the entire system. In a similar vein, we see these new industry specific AI tools as ensuring that individual industries can properly realize the economic impact of LLMs, and that the contextual, data, and workflow integration will prove enduringly valuable.
Examples in this vein include Abridge, Nabla, and DeepScribe, which are rethinking medical and patient care, while Studeo is reshaping how real estate businesses market property. Architects are using SketchPro to instantly render designs with simple text prompts, restaurants are using Slang.ai to take phone reservations, and property managers are unifying customer support with HostAl. Harvey, whose Al legal assistant is used by many Fortune 500 companies, quadrupled revenue in 2024.
AI and SAAS make small businesses competitive with big business:
From 2005 to 2017, independent pizzerias in the United States saw a decline in numbers as the industry franchised. Then that trend in 2017. By 2023, more independent pizzerias in America than in any other year on record.
We think the rise of vertical SaaS is at least partly responsible. From a platform like Slice, dedicated specifically to the needs of pizzerias, new businesses can get a logo, website, payment system, ordering system, marketing toolkit, and branded boxes—basically everything else they need to operate their pizza
business (except an oven and the perfect sauce). They can remain independent while still benefiting from a franchisee’s economies of scale.
Crypto has found product market fit with stablecoins, “room temperature superconductors for financial services”.
Why care about stablecoins? Improvements to the basic usability of money make economies more prosperous. Consider the transitions from coins to banknotes, from the gold standard to fiat currency, and from paper instruments to electronic payments. Stablecoins are a new branch of the money tree. Such transitions occur with some regularity over the centuries, and the effects tend to be large.
Stablecoins have four important properties relative to the status quo. They make money movement cheaper, they make money movement faster, they are decentralized and open-access (and thus globally available from day one), and they are programmable. Everything interesting follows from these
characteristics.
(See also my talk to Congressional staff with Garett Jones on stablecoins and President Trump’s Crypto Executive Order.)
Finally, Europe needs to wake up:
We don’t think that anyone in Europe deliberately made it a policy goal to discourage the creation or success of new firms, but this has been the inadvertent result. GDPR alone is estimated to have reduced profits for small tech firms in Europe by up to 12%. Those cookie banners hurt, whether you accept them or not.
The Trump Administration’s Attack on Science Will Backfire
The Trump administration is targeting universities for embracing racist and woke ideologies, but its aim is off. The problem is that the disciplines leading the woke charge—English, history, and sociology—don’t receive much government funding. So the administration is going after science funding, particularly the so-called “overhead” costs that support university research. This will backfire for four reasons.
First, the Trump administration appears to believe that reducing overhead payments will financially weaken the ideological forces in universities. But in reality, science overhead doesn’t support the humanities or social sciences in any meaningful way. The way universities are organized, science funding mostly stays within the College of Science to pay for lab space, research infrastructure, and scientific equipment. Cutting these funds won’t defund woke ideology—it will defund physics labs, biomedical research, and engineering departments. The humanities will remain relatively untouched.
Second, science funding supports valuable research, from combating antibiotic resistance to curing cancer to creating new materials. Not all funded projects are useful, but the returns to R&D are high. If we err it is in funding too little rather than too much. The US is a warfare-welfare state when it should be an innovation state. If you want to reform education, repeal the Biden student loan programs that tax mechanical engineers and subsidize drama majors.
Third, if government science funding subsidizes anyone, it’s American firms. Universities are the training grounds for engineers and scientists, most of whom go on to work for U.S. companies. Undermining science funding weakens this pipeline, ultimately harming American firms rather than striking a blow at wokeness. One of the biggest failings of the Biden administration were its attacks on America’s high-tech entrepreneurial firms. Why go after Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Meta when these are among our best, world-beating firms? But you know what other American sector is world-beating? American universities. The linkage is no accident.
Fourth, scientists are among the least woke academics. Most steer clear of activism, and many view leftist campus culture with skepticism. The STEM fields are highly meritocratic and reality-driven. By undermining science, the administration is weakening one of America’s leading meritocratic sectors. The long run implications of weakening meritocracy are not good. Solve for the equilibrium.
In short, going after science funding is a self-defeating strategy. If conservatives want to reform higher education, they need a smarter approach.
Hat tip: Connor.
Method in the Madness?
We study the link between exposure to anger and performance, something that to our knowledge has not been studied before. We exploit the US version of the nationally syndicated television cooking competition MasterChef and collect data on every instance in which judges objectively demonstrate anger to individual participants in each of the episodes in ten years, from 2010 to 2020, of this competition. Contestants exposed to anger from judges end up higher in the final rankings, increase their probability of success in cooking challenges, as well as their probability of reaching the top three and even winning the competition.
Clever paper from Alberto Chong. Now if only you donkeys would improve your comments.
It’s Happening!
Waymo factory in Phoenix, AZ. 2000 cars and counting. 
Hat tip: Brian Potter.