I’ve meant to post on this subject for some time. I first saw it in the Times of London. Then in a variety of blog posts from various sources. Now it’s beginmning to leach into major U. S. media outlets. The evidence that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak is actually growing. At the New York Post Marty Makary presents ten reasons to believe that COVID-19 was the result of a lab leak.
The one big reason to believe it wasn’t remains that most viruses have been found to have been zoonotic—to have started in another species before spreading to humans.
That isn’t actually what this post is about, however. I have two questions:
- Is its source important?
- What should be done if it did turn out to have been the result of a lab leak?
I think it’s important and have already presented my opinion of what should be done.
Basically an ideologically driven diatribe trying to place blame mostly on Fauci but also the Chinese. Doesnt help his cause by being a snarky asshole.
1) Yes. If we know the source maybe we can reduce the risk.
2) There should probably be sanctions of some sort, but no idea how we would enforce them.
Steve
I think it almost certainly was a leak and that it is very important. The leak was related to gain of function research and both the US and Chinese governments were involved.
What should happen is the complete and unequivocally banning of such research, with as much transparency and oversight as possible to enforce the ban. Of course we all know this will not happen.
From a policy standpoint, we ought to be operating under the assumption that both are true. Even if it is a lab leak, we know from experience that Chinese wet markets are a source of global contagion. So our policy ought to pressure China to close wet markets as well as be much more prudent with laboratory support and testing.
Maybe something is going on behind the scenes, but I find little evidence that either is being done or attempted. We are still engaged in – at this point – dumb culture war look-back fights over Fauci or masks or whatever instead of taking rather more obvious steps to prevent and prepare for the next global pandemic.
Andy, your position has been what I’ve advocating.
On stricter controls in gain of function research; I believe the biggest barrier are virologists — especially the biggest recipients of funding in the field (which are US researchers).
Think how one would feel if the government mandated gain of function research to be as restricted as nuclear physics research? How many people would volunteer to relocate their career from Boston to New Mexico; spend most of their time with computer simulations instead doing real life experiments; and deal with 10 layers of government bureaucracy to do an experiment. It would also turn the field from a reputation of protecting humanity to being a profound risk to humanity.
There’s no easy solution here because the virologists are also the key advisors to the government on how to prepare/prevent the next pandemic.
I am not as well versed in biology as you guys so I am less certain that all gain of function research is bad. I also am not sure how you stop it. Obama stopped most of it. Trump reinstated most of it. All by executive action. We dont have a good way to control it in the US. How do we control it outside the US? If China agrees to give it up what stops other countries from taking it up?
In some ideal world we get all of the other countries in the world to agree that China was the source, be it the leak or wet markets. The rest of the world pressures China, probably via economic measures, to stop the wet markets and stop gain of function or at least do it safely. We dont live in that world. But there are 23 countries with BSL4 labs, the type where one would do GOF research. Most of those 23 countries have no oversight on the research being done in those labs.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/fifty-nine-labs-around-world-handle-the-deadliest-pathogens-only-a-quarter-score-high-on-safety
Steve
A good start would be by not financing it.
I agree with you generally that it’s hard to control. We can, however, do a much better job of controlling international travel. Wouldn’t that mitigate the risks somewhat?
I don’t believe I’ve ever commented on “gain of function” research. I wouldn’t know how valuable it might be. I do believe it presents risks and the risks are worth mitigating.