[kaneliomena]

Asserting that understanding the origins of a virus helps control its adverse impacts is completely bog-standard fare in the literature. Finding it suspicious in this case smacks of an isolated demand for rigor and unfamiliarity with the field. Even a cursory look at papers making a case for a zoonotic origin is likely to reveal statements to the same effect, here's just two for example:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...

>Failure to comprehensively investigate the zoonotic origin through collaborative and carefully coordinated studies would leave the world vulnerable to future pandemics arising from the same human activities that have repeatedly put us on a collision course with novel viruses.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

> Detailed understanding of how an animal virus jumped species boundaries to infect humans so productively will help in the prevention of future zoonotic events. For example, if SARS-CoV-2 pre-adapted in another animal species, then there is the risk of future re-emergence events.

[ytpete]

Right - it should never really be suspicious for a research paper to include text rationalizing why it's a good idea to invest in researching that topic. That's just basic self advocacy.