Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
World's many dangerous virus labs deserve more oversight, by Faye Flam

World's many dangerous virus labs deserve more oversight, by Faye Flam

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}

Even if we never learn whether COVID-19 escaped from a lab or jumped to humans from animals, the public is entitled to a closer look at what’s going on in virology labs.

Some scientists worry that laboratory scientists are getting too little oversight on projects that could potentially start pandemics. Others worry about the global proliferation of labs that work with dangerous viruses and other pathogens.

The journal Nature accused politicians and the media of stirring up a “divisive” argument over the origins of the pandemic, but it’s only reasonable to want an explanation for some curious facts. The virus that has killed 3.5 million people so far and upended the lives of billions of others seems to have its closest relative in horseshoe bats, yet there are no horseshoe bat colonies close to Wuhan, China, where the pandemic was first identified. Wuhan does, however, host a lab holding the world’s largest collection of bat coronaviruses.

A World Health Organization team sent to investigate came back with little in the way of plausible explanations for SARS-CoV-2. Nor are the explanations mutually exclusive — the virus could be a naturally occurring bat virus collected by a scientist and placed in a lab from which it later escaped. There’s no convincing evidence that this virus has been genetically manipulated, but it’s well known that scientists have manipulated other viruses to make them more dangerous.

Biologist Richard Ebright, a professor at Rutgers University, walked me through a history of biodefense laboratory research going back to 9/11 and the anthrax attacks that followed in its wake. Because Congress was targeted in those attacks, the incident spurred the U.S. government’s interest in researching germ warfare defenses. But things took a strange twist: While it was commonly assumed the attacks were carried out by foreign terrorists, a multi-year investigation pointed back to an American biodefense researcher. Investigators linked the attacks to Bruce Ivins, a virologist at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Maryland, though he killed himself before he could be tried. Perhaps increasing controls over biodefense research would have been a more rational response than ramping up funding.

Ebright told me that back in 2003, the scientific community started to voice concerns over the realization that emerging genetic technology might, in principle, allow people to alter viruses to make them deadlier or more transmissible. And indeed, such experiments started happening — funded by the National Institutes of Health and done in the name of defense, or simply to better understand viruses as a line of basic research.

A project in 2005 led to the re-creation of the deadly 1918 pandemic flu virus — something that helped scientists understand why that pandemic struck so many young, healthy people, but also led to concerns over the risk of a lab leak.

Another project in 2011 altered a bird flu virus so it could spread between mammals. This was a particularly scary creation because bird flu can occasionally jump from birds to humans, killing about 60% of those infected. A version of this that could travel from human to human would be devastating. Debate continued for years over whether the benefits of this kind of research could possibly justify the grave risk, though the research was scheduled to resume in 2019.

There’s also U.S. funding for virus surveillance, which carries its own risks. Researchers go out and collect viruses, grow them in their labs, and use them in experiments. Ebright considers this analogous to the space virus collection in “The Andromeda Strain,” except that now we know that plenty of exotic viruses exist right here on Earth.

Scientists have, more recently, been creating genetically altered coronaviruses. That research has been done as a collaboration between U.S. labs and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. In one controversial project, researchers took bat coronaviruses and introduced changes to see if they could induce greater pandemic potential. That research was published in 2015 in Nature Medicine.

More experiments followed, in which the spike gene of one coronavirus was fused to the backbone of another, creating new viruses increasingly adept at infecting human cells. “And so this is, of course, a cookbook for constructing a virus of extremely high pandemic potential,” says Ebright.

Under Obama, there was a “pause” on funding for gain-of-function research in 2014 and calls for a review of existing research, which was carried out through the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Under Trump, there was a new set of controls, which required reviews through the NIH, but Ebright said only two projects were ever reviewed. In practice, this meant weaker protections were in place.

Ebright suggests that OSTP or another independent entity should be responsible for oversight, rather than agencies that do research or fund it.

Purdue University virologist David Sanders told me he agrees with Ebright’s concerns, but he thinks the danger lies less in these genetic manipulation experiments and more in the worldwide proliferation of labs that deal in deadly pathogens, natural or engineered.

He says there should be oversight, but that some genetic manipulation of viruses can provide valuable insights. Gene therapy, for example, uses altered viruses to deliver lifesaving genetic material into human cells.

And he wasn’t convinced by arguments laid out in an influential article by former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade, first published in Medium, implying SARS-CoV-2 was the product of genetic modification. There’s nothing about the virus that would make a natural origin unlikely.

But how did it get into humans? We still don’t know. And it’s perfectly reasonable to keep asking questions.

Concerned about COVID-19?

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

If China hopes to avert a fall in its population by raising the maximum number of children per mother from two to three, it’s going to have its work cut out. That’s because declining fertility, once started, tends to be an inexorable force that few nations have managed to arrest, let alone reverse. Of the 85 countries where fertility had fallen to less than 2.1 births per woman in 2009 — the ...

President Joe Biden’s recently unveiled budget marks a new era in U.S. economic policymaking. Decades of trickle-down tax cuts are out the window; Biden is betting that trickle-up economics will deliver the kind of sustained and equitable growth we all want. But that's a dangerously short-sighted strategy that in the long term will create far more stagnation than a Reaganomics agenda that ...

A veteran with a fever and hacking cough that suggest a possible coronavirus infection tries to make a doctor’s appointment, only to be turned away by a receptionist who personally decides the would-be patient can’t see a physician. A former service member and sexual assault survivor at risk of suicide is denied access to mental health services by a bureaucratic gatekeeper stationed at the ...

In an important 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court pushed back against prosecutorial overreach in computer-related misconduct. What’s most interesting about the case is the breakdown among the justices: On one side, all five justices appointed since 2008 — by Barack Obama and by Donald Trump — plus Justice Stephen Breyer; on the other side, three conservative justices appointed before 2005, two ...

It’s more important to accomplish goals than to abide by principles. The end justifies the means. Isn’t this historical wisdom, the foundation on which America was built, or should have been built, and anyway, people are so much smarter today, at least progressives are. Right? Wrong, at least on the idea of affirmative action, an absurdist view of justice that could make life worse for Black ...

The question of whether women should serve in front-line combat roles was settled years ago, when the Obama administration officially rescinded a long-standing ban on such duty. So why do we still require only men to register with the Selective Service System when they turn 18? Why has the struggle for gender equality stopped at the door of the draft board? Or why, on Monday, did the Supreme ...

The best local coverage, unlimited

Sign up for a digital subscription to The Press of Atlantic City now and take advantage of a great offer.

LEARN MORE

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Breaking News