Key Terms
Gain-of-Function Research:
The process of manipulating a virus to be more contagious to humans; the hope is that this research can preemptively lead to the creation of a vaccine by studying how it interacts with human cells.
SARS Virus (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome):
A contagious and sometimes fatal respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus.
SARS-CoV-2:
Scientific name for the Covid-19 Virus. This is one strand of bat-related Coronaviruses that lead to SARS-like respiratory symptoms in humans.
Mutation:
A random change in the genome of an organism. This adaptation affects how the organism interacts with the world for better or worse. Traits that allow the organism to survive tend to get passed onto the subsequent generation through natural selection.
Chinese Communist Party (CCP):
The ruling party of the Chinese government. It is a communist-authoritative leadership led by Xi Jingping.
Context
The political leadership in China, the Chinese Communist Party, has faced a significant amount of controversy in regards to human rights violations and authoritative leadership tactics. This includes their genocidal (as classified by the United Nations) treatment of Uighur Muslims, forceful silencing of anti-government protests in Hong Kong, and finally denying Taiwan its sovereignty. The government is known for oppressive tactics to remain a competing world power. Combine this with the nuanced relationship that American corporations and politicians have with China, and an abundance of conflicting interests arise. For example, Hollywood and the NBA have faced criticism for overlooking these human rights issues since China is a significant consumer of their media. Therefore, the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory plays into a broader narrative where a lack of transparency by the Chinese government may not necessarily be challenged by American leaders since our economies are so intertwined.
Introduction
First and foremost, the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory has been politicized over the last year and still seems to retain some connotation of this divided sentiment. The goal here is to dispel any partisanship and simply present what we know, as well as what we do not know, for the sake of clarity.
A key theme to be aware of is that there is no 'proof' for the theory as of now. When National Security Advisor Mathew Pottinger asked for evidence of the Lab Leak Theory at the beginning of the pandemic, this is what he was told; and it was, and is still, true. However this can contextually mean two things:
A. It has not yet been investigated thoroughly, so it may have happened but there is no proof because no one has looked.
B. It has been investigated it to the fullest extent and they found no evidence.
In other words: no evidence does not necessarily mean there is none, instead merely that it has not been found yet. Now in an era of retaliatory journalism and an anti-Trump sentiment, journalists and media sites took the liberty of assuming the latter, falsely assuming that 'no proof' meant it had been ruled out as a possibility.
Thus, while there is not a smoking gun in terms of evidence, it is important to organize and lay out what we do know about the theory.
Gain-of-Function Research
Viruses are constantly mutating and adapting in order to survive. Typically, they are either extremely deadly for the host or they are highly contagious. It is unlikely for them to be both at the same time but this is the common fear amongst the scientific community. That at any given time a virus possessing these two attributes could leap species and affect humans, creating a worldwide pandemic that we are not prepared for. The spill-over theory is the idea that this leap to humans occurred naturally. It is relatively common for a virus to mutate naturally in a manner that would allow it to impact the human species.
This is where the controversial gain-of-function research enters the equation. The concept is that in order to be prepared for a natural outbreak, scientists should gather potential viral specimens from nature and study them so that they can learn the best methods of prevention and can prepare the base formula for a potential vaccine. In order to study them in this manner, scientists engage in what is called 'gain-of-function' research. This involves artificially mutating viruses under controlled environments in order to study them. For example, they will take a virus from nature that currently has no affect on humans and make it more potent to see what happens when it interacts with human cells. This genetically modified virus is now not only potent, but also contagious to humans as it has been 'taught' to breach the human cell's membrane.
Essentially, in order to preemptively protect against a viral outbreak that can impact humans, they genetically strengthen the virus creating what is known as a 'chimera-virus.' This allows them to study its interaction with human cells, which in turn allows them to learn how to create a vaccine. The hope is that they can do this before it finds a way to naturally evolve and spill-over into humans in the wild. It is a highly controversial method of research because individuals will argue that the threat of a lab leak is more probable than a natural mutation.
An article from 2017 demonstrates an already heightened worry in regards to the new Wuhan Lab of Virology. Both due to China's lack of transparency and the dangers around studying SARS viruses (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome): Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world's most dangerous pathogens.
"But worries surround the Chinese lab, too. The SARS virus has escaped from high-level containment facilities in Beijing multiple times, notes Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey. Tim Trevan, founder of CHROME Biosafety and Biosecurity Consulting in Damascus, Maryland, says that an open culture is important to keeping BSL-4 labs safe, and he questions how easy this will be in China, where society emphasizes hierarchy. 'Diversity of viewpoint, flat structures where everyone feels free to speak up and openness of information are important,' he says."
Viruses will mutate naturally and sometimes this mutation does allow them to jump species to humans. Proponents of gain-of-function research will argue that this research is vital to our preparation as a society. Critics will argue that the benefits do not outweigh the risks and since there is a near infinite possibility of viral strands out there, we are better off putting those resources into other preventative measures; such as infrastructure to identify, communicate, and shutdown potential outbreaks at the source or first sign. While the controversy has been prevalent over the years, the issue now is that proponents of gain-of-function research have a direct conflict of interest with the lab leak theory. They would benefit from perpetuating a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) from the beginning. Not only does it shift blame away from the controversial research, but it also provides an avenue to advocate for its future importance.
What We Know:
Wuhan Institute of Virology Deemed Unsafe in 2018
The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was China's first level 4 biosecurity lab (denoted BSL-4). These labs have a containment security ranking of 1 through 4 in order to deem their qualifications and equipment for studying particular diseases and viruses safely. BSL-4 labs are the most secure laboratories and are capable of studying the world's most deadly pathogens due to the equipment and rigid precautions implemented.
In early 2018, the U.S. Embassy in Beijing sent U.S. Science Diplomats to inspect the new lab. They returned two warnings to Washington D.C. (called cables) about their concerns for the safety practices of the new lab. Especially since they have been working closely with SARS-Coronavirus strands from bats and had shown that some possessed the potential to leap to humans.
Study of Bat-Related Coronaviruses
Shi Zhengli, who is the head of research at WIV, has been studying bat coronaviruses along with her team for many years. They published an article in 2017 that demonstrated horseshoe bats from a cave in Yunnan Province in 2005 were likely the source, or closely related to the source, of the 2003 SARS-Coronavirus outbreak and pandemic. They demonstrate in this scientific article that the strain of virus that they found is capable of using the human receptor, ACE2, to enter human cells Therefore, it has adapted naturally to have the potential to jump to humans. As such, it is plausible that the 2003 SARS outbreak came from this natural source and it is possible it can happen again.
"Our current study therefore offers a clearer picture on the evolutionary origin of SARS-CoV and highlights the risk of future emergence of SARS-like diseases."
The combination of the warning issued in this study, coupled with the information about concerns for the biosecurity leads to questions about the research in China.
Coronavirus Study Conducted in BSL-2 Lab
The Wuhan Institute of Virology is a BSL-4 but there is a lab in close proximity that is a BSL-2 lab. This is the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention Lab. There is much debate as to where the virus was studied and the Chinese Authorities have not been transparent with this information.
In in interview with Science Magazine, Shi Zhengli revealed that they did perform some Coronavirus research at this BSL-2 lab. This would be done to work in a more efficient environment since the safety equipment of higher level labs can slow down progress. Additionally, SARS Viruses have escaped labs in Beijing before. This is why the safety requirements deem that at least a BSL-3 lab is needed to study SARS viruses. Now, bat-related Coronaviruses have a different requirement and it is acceptable for them to be studied at BSL-2 labs. The issue is that these qualifications do not necessarily take into account gain-of-function research, which has the intention of creating more potent and possibly infectious agents.
Funding
In April of 2020, the United States stopped funding gain-of-function research to Wuhan Institute of Virology. This funding was previously sent from the National Institute of Health, led by Anthony Fauci, to Ecohealth Alliance. Ecohealth Alliance is led by Peter Daszak and they are directly involved in funding the gain-of-function operations at the Wuhan lab, as they subcontracted out these U.S. grants to the team at Wuhan.
Letter Silences 'Lab Leak Theory'
Early in the pandemic, a letter was produced to silence the 'lab leak conspiracy.' It was a signed statement by 27 prominent scientists in the industry and it was published in the Lancet Journal. The goal was to quell any debate about the supposed ‘lab leak conspiracy’ so that efforts in the scientific community would not be wasted on such a fringe origin story. The letter is also ended with the statement:
“We declare no competing interests.”
However, there was a clear conflict of interests that went overlooked: many of these scientists had connections to gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Most prominently was the main drafter of the letter, Peter Daszak who is the president of Ecohealth Alliance. Though he may have genuinely believed that the natural origin story was still the most scientifically plausible, it is safe to say that there was a clear conflict of interest since his company was directly involved in funding the controversial research at Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Since the end goal of gain-of-function research is to preemptively produce a vaccine, the same research that may have put the world at risk, could have also helped create the necessary vaccine. A natural occurance would validate Daszak’s controversial work but a lab leak could put an end to it and leave him culpable to some extent. Regardless, these are also the reasons that he should have provided information about his research instead of campaigning to shift public opinion. He later thanked Anthony Fauci in an email for putting an end to the lab leak narrative.
World Health Organization
The World Health Organization performed the first investigation after the outbreak into the Wuhan Lab of Virology. They then published a joint report with China sharing their findings which suggest a lab leak origin is highly unlikely. This report has faced a lot of backlash since many recognize the over-involvement of China’s role in the investigation as well as the lack of quality investigation practices.
The Chinese government essentially controlled the entire investigation. The WHO individuals were only there for a few hours, were denied access to raw data and lab samples, limited in who they could speak with, and they were not trained in how to analyze a BSL-4 lab for a breach in containment. Lastly, the investigation was performed by none other than Peter Daszak.
Researchers in Wuhan became Sick in Fall 2019
In an statement condemning China's lack of transparency, the U.S. Department of State declares that they have reason to believe researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell ill with symptoms consistent with that of SARS-CoV-2, as early as Autumn of 2019. Though these symptoms would be difficult to distinguish from other common illnesses at the time, it still remains that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) did not disclose this information and has still not acknowledged it, despite present knowledge of the pandemic. It raises concerns about the legitamacy of WIV research leader Shi Zhengli's prior statements; in which she stated that there was zero known infection among her staff. Even if the unknown illness was not SARS-CoV-2, it remains that the CCP has actively prevented a free flow of information. The U.S. statement continues to condemn the CCP for:
"[preventing] independent journalists, investigators, and global health authorities from interviewing researchers at the WIV, including those who fell ill in the fall of 2019. Any credible inquiry into the origin of the virus must include interviews with these researchers and a full accounting of their previously unreported illness."
The Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) Lack of Transparency
Since the dawn of the outbreak, many doctors and journalists who criticized the government or challenged the original narrative have since gone missing or been silenced. At the very least, under Xi's leadership of the CCP, they have attempted to control the narrative suppressing free speech and an open flow of information.
Li Wenliang is one of the first doctors to inform the world of a potential SARS-related pandemic in December of 2019. He did so accidentally as he was only attempting to warn colleagues and alumni of his past medical school to be prepared. Screenshots of the conversation were leaked and
"Li was later called to a police station, reprimanded for spreading rumors online, and forced to sign a statement acknowledging his "misdemeanor" before he was allowed to leave."
He was later vindicated by China's Supreme Court. He has since passed away from the virus and has become a martyr for those calling for free speech in China. Authorities are still actively altering the narrative by scrubbing the internet of this narrative.
The Chinese Government continues to suppress any story that does not align with the one that they want. This not only includes preventing independent journalism, but actively punishing those who reported early in the pandemic. The first to be punished is citizen journalist Zhang Zhan. She reported on the overwhelmed city conditions and was critical of the CCP's downplaying of the initial severity of the virus. This past December of 2020,
"In a closed-door trial that lasted less than three hours, authorities in Shanghai handed down the sentence to Zhang Zhan, 37, for 'picking quarrels and provoking trouble,' a charge often used against dissidents."
A central issue with their lack of transparency is that it delayed efforts to prevent the spread of the virus. A virus spreads exponentially, and if you can catch it early before it has branched out to a significant number of people, then it is far easier to stop in its tracks. China's downplaying of the virus potentially allowed it to spread beyond control before officials around the world even had a chance to implement preventative measures.
Beyond the omission or downplaying of the narrative, they refused to provide the World Health Organization with vital information for many weeks. Most importantly, they delayed releasing the genome of the virus for more than a week, and only after another lab was able to decode it and release it themselves. This genome is the map to understanding the virus and is crucial to developing a vaccine and other preventative measures. Since their lab is known for its study of bat Coronaviruses, they had the most research into the particular disease, but government interference prevented it from openly sharing it with the world in a speedy manner. They also did not provide a comprehensive list of patient data to track the spread of the illness for multiple weeks. All of this is crucial wasted time that could have been used to combat the spread of the virus.
A Relative of SARS-CoV-2 Found
In 2012, 6 individuals fell ill after working in a Copper mine in the Yunnan Province in China. The individuals had an acute pneumonia and three of them died. In 2013, samples were taken from the bat guano from the caves and the bat-related Coronavirus samples were sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology to be studied. In 2020, with new technology, scientists went back to compare SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) with these samples and found a 96.2% match with one of them, denoted RaTG13, which they published in this addendum.
Possible Manipulated Features
In January of 2020, virologist Kristian Anderson of Scripps Research Institute of La Jolla sent an email to Dr. Fauci. In this email, he suggested that the genome of the virus hints to the idea that it may have been engineered, but would require more studying.
”Those features included a structure known as the furin cleavage site that allows the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to be cleaved by furin, an enzyme found in human cells, and another structure, known as the receptor binding domain, that allowed the virus to anchor to the outside of human cells via a cell-surface protein known as ACE2.”
In an interview with the New York Times, Anderson stated that further analysis revealed that these features were found in other related Coronaviruses and thus he still believes a natural origin to be the most likely scenario. Other scientists, such as Nobel laureate David Baltimore, believe that the features could point towards human manipulation; especially in regards to the furin cleavage site.
Issues with the Natural Spill-Over Origin
A natural zoonotic spill-over is the most common origin story for a pandemic in humans. Therefore, it is understandable how the default would be to lean towards this theory. However, there are some issues with the theory in this scenario.
First and foremost, the location of the first case does is not conducive to a natural spill-over. The bat caves are located in the Yunnan Province of China and this is 600 miles from the location of the first cases, Wuhan. It is also extremely convenient that the location of the epicenter is the same place that the only BSL-4 lab in China exists. Particularly one that is known for its study of bat Coronaviruses. When WHO published their joint report with China, they recommended that the scientific community should look into the markets in Wuhan as they believe that the virus could have traveled on frozen food to the city. No concrete evidence has been found for this theory either.
To further complicate matters, experts are concerned with how contagious the virus was to humans right from the start. Typically, an adaptation that allows a zoonotic virus to leap to humans has its own imperfections and weaknesses initially. The virus then has to 'learn' how to propagate in humans, so most of the adaptation that makes it contagious to humans occurs over time as it spreads amongst the population. This virus was particularly infectious to humans right away and this raises concerns that gain-of-function research was performed on it.
Finally, there is still no evidence for a natural origin of human contact with animals. In most other natural spill-over pandemics, the intermediate culprit has usually been identified by now. Yet after over a year and a half, they still have not identified the origin bat.
Conclusion
Regardless of whether or not the virus originated in a lab, there are enough conflicting interests to present some difficult questions for the scientific community and the world. Namely, whether the benefits of gain-of-function research outweigh the risks; as well as how we should interact with China in the future, knowing that their government system is set up in a manner that lacks any transparency. While both origin stories remain plausible, we know that there is enough probable cause to warrant a further investigation into the matter. This inquiry is currently in the works as President Biden ordered a 90 day investigation on May 26th. Questions still remain. Many argue that 90 days is not enough time for a thorough investigation, especially so long after the original outbreak. There are also worries that China's cooperation, or lack there of, will complicate the matter, making a genuine investigation impossible. While the lab leak theory is plausible, there is no 'smoking-gun' evidence for any theory as of now. Regardless, there are vital questions about how countries should interact with China in the future, as the pandemic does not acknowledge different governing borders.
Thank you
If you appreciate the breakdown we provided, one of the best ways to support our mission is to share this article. We appreciate your support!