Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[EX Q]: Although there was no discussion of costs, the article was clear in stating that vaccines arefor the most partin an early stage of development, so this omission is understandable. We wanted to seebetter coverage of the data here. The story leads with an anecdote about a patient who kicked a pack-a-day smoking habit after treatment with a nicotinevaccine in a study. And later,the story says that smokers who received thatvaccine were "about three times as likely to be off cigarettes 44 weeks after vaccination than subjects given a placebo."The story should have providedthe absolute rates of success reported in the study, which were only 16% for the treatment group compared with 6% for the placebo group, according to theheart.org. Elsewhere,the storydescribes an experimental anticocaine vaccine that was apparently very effective in a mouse study; it could have reported onphase II human data that is available for theTA-CDanticocaine vaccine that was also mentioned in the story. These data again suggest that only a minority of patientsmay benefit from the use of anti-addictionvaccines. The story states that "clinical trials have so far revealed no significant side effects" from vaccine treatments. However, we think the story should have included an important caveat: that these are early stagetrials involving small numbers of patients thatcan't provideconclusive evidence of safety. In addition, it should be recognized that addictions arechronic conditions and these vaccine treatments are likely to be long-term as well. Therefore, longer-term adverse effects should be expected, especially for a treatment that interferes with molecules closely related to the body's natural chemical messengers. The story could have been a bit more circumspect on this point. The promise of this new vaccine technology is counterbalanced by coverage of the uncertainties. The story gives appropriate weightto thedisappointing resultsreported in a number of early clinical studies, noting: "Failures have so far outnumbered successes." The story adds thateven in one of the successful vaccine studies, the benefitswere not as robust as those seen with a smoking cessation drug that is already on the market. There also is no prospect for a vaccine to treat alcoholism, according to the story. The article should have been more direct about the limitations of mouse research, and there was not enough detailon thedata publishedin the various studies reported on (a deficiency we address under the "Benefits" criterion). However, since the story was trying to present a broad overview of happenings in the field and wasn't attempting to summarize any particular study, we'll give the benefit of the doubt here and award a satisfactory. The story didn't exaggerate the effects ofsubstanceabusedisorders or otherwise engage in disease-mongering. The sourcing of this story was good. We hear fromacademics, government researchers, and industry executives. Their voices provide balance and give texture to the coverage. It should be noted, however, that most of these experts have a vested interest in the field or the success of a particular treatment, whether because of industry ties or because they are leading experiments ona particular approach. Even the government experts might be biased by their provision of significant financial support for research in this area. It would have been nice to heara comment about the vaccines from someonewho is certifiably free of all potential conflicts. But we can't justify docking pointssince there is no voice that is overly enthusiastic about the concept. The story compares the potential of vaccines with the benefits of existing medications for addictionand notes that theavailable drugs might work better. We would liketo haveseen more ink givento the role ofbehavioralapproaches in the management of addiction, which are supported by considerable evidence. However,the story does acknowledgethatvaccines "would likely be used alongside psychological therapy."We'll call it good enough for a satisfactory. The article helpfully states that "It could be years, if ever, before any vaccines to treat addiction reach the market." The article does a good job of describing how far along the various experimental vaccines mentioned in the article are in their development. Although the story could haveprovided more background on the history ofanti-addiction vaccines (aheroin vaccine was explored in the 1970s), the treatments being explored now are different fromanything currently available. So we don't think this story overstates thenoveltyof the research. This story is not based on a news release.
[EX A]: Quest for Vaccines to Treat Addiction

[EX Q]: The Trump administration has called for 30 days of measures, including staying at least six feet away from other people, that have upended American life as most people stay isolated at home, shuttering schools and closing businesses through at least the end of April, with some states continuing certain closures through May and June. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said such steps must continue but that there are hopeful signs they are working. "If in fact we are successful, it makes sense to at least plan what a re-entry into normality would look like. That doesn't mean we're going to do it right now, but it means we need to be prepared to ease into that," Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus task force, told Fox News in an interview. Fauci and other public health experts have said the strict measures are needed to control the fast-spreading and potentially fatal disease that has already led to about 400,000 confirmed COVID-19 U.S. cases and nearly 13,000 deaths, even as the shutdowns have roiled the U.S. economy. Dr. Deborah Birx, another task force member, said isolation measures must continue for now or else the country could risk a repeated spike despite the allure of warmer spring weather. "What's really important is that people don't turn these early signs of hope into releasing from the 30 days to stop the spread. It's really critical," she told NBC News' "Today" program. "If people start going out again and socially interacting, we could see a really acute second wave." Asked if 30-day distancing practices would be enough or that steps might have to continue longer, she said officials were looking at each area of the country differently as they weigh the data. "Clearly, there are metro areas that are struggling," Birx said.
[EX A]: U.S. planning ways to 'ease' back to normal if virus efforts work: Fauci.

[EX Q]: Trump even suggested Thursday that the release could have been intentional. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the clearinghouse for the web of U.S. spy agencies, said it had ruled out the virus being man-made but was still investigating the precise source of the global pandemic, which has killed more than 220,000 people worldwide. Though scientists suggest the likeliest origin of the pandemic remains natural, that it spread from an infected animal to a human, Trump claimed to have seen evidence to support the theory that the origin was an infectious disease lab in Wuhan, the epicenter of the Chinese outbreak. He said the U.S. now "is finding how it came out." "It's a terrible thing that happened," the president said. "Whether they made a mistake or whether it started off as a mistake and then they made another one, or did somebody do something on purpose." The intel statement said the federal agencies concur "with the wide scientific consensus that the COVID-19 virus was not manmade or genetically modified." "The IC will continue to rigorously examine emerging information and intelligence to determine whether the outbreak began through contact with infected animals or if it was the result of an accident at a laboratory in Wuhan." In recent days the Trump administration has sharpened its rhetoric on China, accusing the geopolitical foe and vital trading partner of failing to act swiftly enough to sound the alarm about the outbreak or to stop the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19. U.S. officials have said the Chinese government should "pay a price" for its handling of the pandemic. This all comes as the pace of Trump's own original response continues to come under scrutiny, questioned as too meager and too slow. Earlier Thursday, before Trump's comments, the Chinese government said that any claims that the coronavirus was released from a laboratory are "unfounded and purely fabricated out of nothing." Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang cited the institute's director, Yuan Zhiming, as saying the lab strictly implements bio-security procedures that would prevent the release of any pathogen. "I would like to point out again that the origin of the virus is a complex scientific issue, and it should be studied by scientists and professionals," Geng said. He also criticized those in the U.S. who say China should be held accountable for the global pandemic, saying they should spend their time on "better controlling the epidemic situation at home." At the White House, Trump repeatedly blamed China for its handling of the outbreak, criticizing the country for restricting domestic travel to slow the virus but not international travel to keep it from spreading abroad. "Certainly it could have been stopped," Trump said during an event in the East Room on his administration's efforts to aid seniors during the outbreak. "They either couldn't do it from a competence standpoint, or they let it spread." "It got loose, let's say, and they could have capped it." Earlier this month, Trump addressed the lab theory saying, "More and more, we're hearing the story." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo added at the time, "The mere fact that we don't know the answers that China hasn't shared the answers I think is very, very telling." Pompeo also pressed China to let outside experts into the lab "so that we can determine precisely where this virus began." While Trump and Pompeo have made their feelings clear, a U.S. intelligence official disputed the notion that there was pressure on agencies to bolster a particular theory. The intelligence official was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue and spoke only on condition of anonymity. Scientists say the virus arose naturally in bats. Even so, Pompeo and others have pointed fingers at an institute that is run by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It has done groundbreaking research tracing the likely origins of the SARS virus, finding new bat viruses and discovering how they could jump to people. "We know that there is the Wuhan Institute of Virology just a handful of miles away from where the wet market was," Pompeo said two weeks ago. The institute has an address 8 miles, or 13 kilometers, from the market that is considered a possible source. U.S. officials say the American Embassy in Beijing flagged concerns about potential safety issues at the lab in Wuhan in 2018, but they have yet to find any evidence the virus originated there nearly two years later. Scientists studying the virus for months have made clear they believe it wasn't man-made but are still working to determine a point at which it may have jumped from animals to humans. Early attention focused on the live-animal market in Wuhan where the first cases were reported in December. But the first person identified with the disease had no known connection to that market. Kristian Andersen, who studies the virus at Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, puts the odds of it being accidentally released by the Wuhan lab at "a million to one," far less likely than an infection in nature. But virus expert David O'Connor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison said he thinks too little is known to rule out any source, except the idea the virus was man-made. Finding the source is important, he said, because it may harbor the next pandemic virus. The U.S. was providing funding to the Wuhan lab for its research on coronaviruses, Michael Morell, former acting director and deputy director of the CIA, said Thursday. He said State Department cables indicate that there have been concerns in past years among U.S. officials about the safety protocols at that lab. If the virus did escape from a Chinese lab, it not only reflects negatively on China but also on the United States for providing research funding to a lab that has safety concerns, Morell said during an online forum hosted by the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy and International Security at George Mason University. "So if it did escape, we're all in this together," Morell said. "This is not a gotcha for China. This is a gotcha for both of us." ___ Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann in Washington and Malcolm Ritter in New York contributed to this report.
[EX A]:
Trump speculates that China released virus in lab 'mistake'.