NIH investigates whether Boston University’s COVID experiment should have entered review

The National Institutes of Health is now investigating whether the experiment conducted at Boston University should have initiated federal review, the agency said, citing scientists at the school who identified the ancestral subspecies and the Omicron subspecies. After testing strains created by combining seeds.

Federal health officials say they are investigating whether scientists should have asked permission before conducting research that could lead to a “gain of function” of the virus. “Inherently dangerous.”

Locally, a spokesperson for the Boston Public Health Commission said it reviews application materials from study scientists “to ensure that the study was conducted according to protocol and was properly supervised.” increase.

The committee approved a proposed research protocol submitted by the scientists in March 2020, a spokesperson said.

But Boston University said its research followed “all necessary regulatory obligations and protocols” to safely experiment with the virus.

“Before doing anything [National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories]It will be done by a committee that is part of Boston University and a committee that is independent of the BU and outside of the BU,” said Robert Davey, a professor at the National Institute of Emerging Infectious Diseases at Boston University.said in statement.

Scientists were studying what role the highly mutated spike protein of the omicron mutant might play, with a generally milder severity compared to previous waves.

Mice were exposed to a “chimeric recombination” version created by scientists. This carried the Omicron variant’s spike protein combined with the “backbone” of the original strain. evolved in the wild.

Their findings were announced on Friday preprint It hasn’t been peer reviewed yet. The NIH scrutiny first reported According to Statnews.

NIH funding was not directly sought for the experiment, but the NIH is investigating whether it was still the subject of their research. grant policy.

The experiment may have required an initial federal permit. rule The NIH said it was controlling experiments that could lead to “gain-of-function” of the virus. It is supposed to be

However, Boston University says it was under no obligation to disclose this research to the NIH.

The funding from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was acknowledged by the scientist, in their paperBoston University said the grant was only for “tools and platforms” used by scientists.

“NIAID funding was acknowledged because it was used to support the development of the tools and platforms used in this research. They did not directly fund this research. We also received recognition for a shared instrument grant that helps support pathology research,” said Rachel. University spokesperson Rapal Cavalario said in a statement:

NIH study news first follows coverage of Boston University study in daily mailThe university accused the tabloids of sensationalizing their study with a “false and inaccurate” report that took the findings out of context.

For example, in these early reports of findings, 80% of infected mice died after scientists infected animals with the recombinant strain, but no mice died after exposure to the Omicron variant. was emphasized.

The university points out that the original mutant killed 100% of the mice.

If there was any indication that the virus they created for the experiment was “gaining function,” the scientists would “immediately” stop the study and report it, Rapal-Cavallario said.

The study was also conducted in the university’s “BSL-3” lab.that is second highest There are no layers of precautions that scientists can take when studying viruses, except those taken to study the most dangerous pathogens for which “no vaccines or treatments are available.”

“We take the safety and security of how we work with pathogens seriously, and we never leave the lab where the virus is being studied,” said Ronald Corey, director of NEIDL at Boston University, in a statement. There is none.

With Mothan Said, the lead author of the study, other experts I cite other studies that have done similar types of experiments without controversy.

1 study The paper, co-authored by Food and Drug Administration researchers over the summer, also generated “chimeric viruses” in Omicron and ancestral lineages to test in mice.

The study authors and an FDA spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The preprint comes as federal policy governing enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) research is under scrutiny. NIH Working Group.

Professor Richard Ebright of Rutgers University said, “Like the study in Wuhan that may have sparked the pandemic, it is concerning that this study was not identified as a possible ePPP study by the funding agency. ” writes. on Twitter.

Ebright et al. also disputed the university’s claim that the study was not a “gain of function” experiment.

“First of all, these are definitely gain-of-function experiments. As many have pointed out, this is a very broad term that includes many harmless and potentially dangerous experiments,” said Harvard University’s Epidemiologist and Center for Disease Control and Prevention Mark Lipsitch Forecast departmentsaid Wednesday on Twitter.