Leading researchers want a real-world study of the origin of covid-19

The letter, compiled by Stanford University microbiologist David Lerman and Washington University virologist Jesse Bloom, concludes that the bat virus is likely to have infected humans, conducted by the World Health Organization and China. The recent collaborative research of origin is aimed at through intermediate animals, and laboratory accidents “Very unlikely.”

According to the author of the new letter, the conclusion was not scientifically justified. No evidence of the virus first infecting humans was found And the possibility of an accident in the laboratory was just a quick glance. Only a handful of pages 313 of the WHO Origin Report and their appendices are dedicated to the subject.

Until recently, Mark Lipsich, a renowned Harvard epidemiologist who was one of the signatories of the letter, did not express his views on the origin of the virus and instead focused on improving epidemiological studies and vaccine trial design. He said he chose that. Partly because the debate over lab theory is very controversial. “I was busy dealing with the consequences of the pandemic, not the cause, so I avoided it,” he says. “”[But] When WHO publishes a report that makes suspicious claims on important topics … it’s worth talking about. “

Some of the people who signed the letter, including Lipsitch and Relman, have in the past sought a more detailed investigation of genetically engineered “gain-of-function” studies to make the virus more infectious or virulent. Experiments to manipulate the pathogen were also underway at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a major center in China for studying SARS-CoV-2-like bat viruses. Some people see the fact that covid-19 first appeared in the same city where the laboratory was located as circumstantial evidence that a laboratory accident could be the cause.

Lipsitch previously Estimate risk He warns that the proliferation of thousands of such laboratories around the world is of great concern for a pandemic caused by an accidental release from a high-security biolab of 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 10,000 per year. Did.

Chinese scientists say that such a leak did not occur in this case, but the author of the letter states that it can only be established by a more independent investigation. “Appropriate investigations are transparent, objective, data-driven, include extensive expertise, are subject to independent monitoring, and are managed responsibly to minimize the impact of conflicts of interest. We need to, “they write. “Public health agencies and laboratories likewise need to make their records publicly available. Investigators need to document the authenticity and source of the data that is analyzed and the conclusions are drawn.”

Shi Zhengli, chief scientist for emerging infectious diseases at the Wuhan Institute of Vase, said in an email that the allegations of the letter were misguided and would undermine the world’s ability to respond to pandemics. “It’s absolutely unacceptable,” Shi said of the group’s call to see her lab records. “Who can provide proof that no one exists?”

“It’s really sad to read this” letter “written by these 18 prominent scientists. The city wrote in her email. “The lab leak hypothesis is based on lab expertise that has long worked on the bat coronavirus that is phylogenetically associated with SARS-CoV-2. This type of claim can spread to the population. It certainly undermines the reputation and enthusiasm of scientists dedicated to tackling a new animal virus, and ultimately weakens humans’ ability to prevent the next pandemic. “

AP image

The debate over the Labrique hypothesis is already very political. In the United States, it is most loudly accepted by Republican lawmakers and conservative media figures, including Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The resulting polarization has had a chilling effect on scientists. Some scientists are hesitant to express their concerns, says Relman.

“Science hasn’t made it possible, so we were motivated to say something. It’s a very fair, rigorous and open effort to make something clearer. “He says. “Some of my goals were to create a safe space for other scientists to talk about themselves.”

“Ideally, this is a relatively indisputable call for as clear an eye as possible when testing some viable hypotheses with little data,” the letter said. Megan Palmer, a biosecurity expert at Stanford University who is not part of the group, said. “If politics is complex and interests are high, reminders from prominent experts may be needed to force careful consideration by others.”