The Spanish government is investigating an outbreak of African swine fever, and is considering a lab leak from a research center as a possible cause:
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/spain-investigating-whether-swine-fever-outbreak-was-caused-by-laboratory-leak-2025-12-05/
This market will resolve Yes if, before 2028, Spanish authorities conclude that this outbreak of African swine fever most likely came from a leak from a Spanish lab.
Update 2025-12-06 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The lab leak must be from a Spanish lab for this market to resolve Yes. If the outbreak is determined to be caused by foreign actors (e.g., biowarfare from another country), this market will resolve No.
Update 2026-02-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Multiple authorities scenario clarification:
If MAPA/EUVET scientists conclude it's likely a lab leak → resolves YES
If there's a guilty verdict in a trial before 2028 → resolves YES (even if scientific authorities disagree)
If there's an ongoing trial without verdict but scientific authorities say it's not a lab leak → resolves NO
Pessoas também estão operando
The government investigation looks increasingly likely not to conclude there was a lab leak*, but there's still an ongoing police investigation, under judicial secrecy. What counts as "Spanish authorities" for this market - does that include police or prosecutors? If a relevant prosecution were brought, would a guilty finding before 2028 be needed for this market to resolve YES?
*MAPA issued a preliminary report about two weeks ago. English-language reporting has unfortunately been minimal. In summary, there were no matches with known strains. This has been interpreted as the local labs being in the clear. (I do not think this evidence definitively proves a natural origin or disproves a research origin, but that's not what this market has asked about.)
@SacredChicken I'm not following this too closely. I'm aware the MAPA report came out but I have not translated or read it. Last I heard before that (December EUVET presentations and associated reporting), the strain found had 20+ mutations from lab reference strains, so a lab accident is much less likely than when some initial reporting said the strain was identical to Georgia 2007. That doesn't, of course, rule out cases where a lab sampled novel strains and then leaked them, or something like that, so you'd expect there's more investigation required than just comparing one sequence to a 2007 reference.
I had not thought about the possibility that multiple sets of Spanish authorities conclude differently on the issue. If scientists (i.e. MAPA/EUVET) decide this is likely a lab leak, then this resolves YES. If there's a trial and a guilty verdict before 2028, I think that would have to be a YES here, even if other scientific authorities disagree with the outcome. If there's some ongoing trial without a verdict, but scientific authorities say that this is not a lab leak, then I think this would have to resolve NO.
@PeterMillerc030 Thank you, that's clear, and I think those resolution clarifications make sense.
I agree the probability of a lab leak has fallen since the initial Georgia 2007 announcement in early December (and I have reversed my bet on this market). I am disappointed by the quality of reasoning in the MAPA report, and by the media reporting around it, but that has only minimal impact on this market.
In Poland, there are allegations that Polish swine fever was caused by Russian sabotage:
https://bsky.app/profile/notesfrompoland.bsky.social/post/3m75vkgdea22v
If the Spanish outbreak proves to be Russian biowarfare, this market will resolve No -- the lab leak must be from a Spanish lab for this to resolve Yes.