Lab origin is no longer a conspiracy theory

After significant delay, the WHO released its long expected report on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in late March. The report, including annexes, totals 313 pages, but it is mainly its conclusions that have been covered extensively in the public debate.

“I think there is a gap in how the media covers the scientific debate” says Alina Chan, a postdoctoral fellow at Broad Institute of MIT & Harvard, who has risen to international fame by looking into the possibility of a lab leak in China as the cause of the pandemic.

“The conclusions themselves are easy to report upon, but the most interesting material is in the underlying data, where we can see to what extent the conclusions are supported by the findings in the report,” Chan elaborates.

The WHO report has examined four hypotheses in regards to how the virus originated, and ranked all of them according to probability.

The most likely explanation according to the report is that the virus passed over to humans through an intermediate host. The least likely explanation – deemed «extremely unlikely» – is considered to be the lab origin hypothesis. The latter conclusion was, however, criticized by WHO´s Director–General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who slammed China for delaying the investigation and refusing to share datasets with the group of international researchers. He further insisted that all hypotheses should remain on the table, and that he was ready to deploy a special team to investigate the possibility of a lab leak.

No need for new trips to China

Chan believes the approach taken by Dr. Tedros is sensible in the current situation, and outlines a few steps that she believes should be undertaken to ensure further progress in the search for the origins of the virus.

“One of the first things that should be done, is to let the WHO report undergo an independent peer-review, free of political interference, to see how well the conclusions are supported by the underlying data”, Chan says.

Chan for one finds it peculiar that the report has listed introduction through an intermediate host as the most likely explanation for how the virus was passed on to humans:

“The WHO report contains no new evidence in support of this hypothesis”, Chan says.

“In fact, it is on the contrary. The report states that tens of thousands of animals have been tested, without finding any evidence to support the hypothesis that any of the tested species passed the virus onto humans. Hence the arguments in favor of such an explanation are generic and were also well known prior to the field study in China,” Chan explains.

In order to investigate the possibility of a lab leak in a meaningful way, Chan underlines the need to cut through red tape, and avoid further political interference with the investigation.

“We do not need to seek further approval from China for field visits in order to reexamine this hypothesis”, Chan says, and points out that a vast amount of information is already available outside of China.

“There are several individuals speaking on behalf of the US intelligence community that makes the argument for a lab leak citing classified material. We also have prominent US scientists like Robert Redfield who led the CDC and likely had access to non-public information when the outbreak began, who has spoken in favor of the lab origin hypothesis. What we need to further explore this possibility, is that all of the material that they are basing their conclusions upon, becomes publicly available for other researchers to assess.”

“Right now, very important information resides in silos, so just by removing these barriers a lot of progress can be made in order to assess the possibility of a lab leak,” Chan explains.

And according to a new bipartisan bill proposed in the US Senate, there might be a way for this information to now be made public.

The bill, which has been proposed by Bob Menendez (D) and James Risch (R) to «address issues involving the People’s Republic of China», calls for the US government to provide «an assessment of the most likely source or origin of the SARS–CoV–2 virus, including a detailed review of all information the United States possesses that it has identified as potentially relevant to the source or origin of the SARS–CoV–2 virus, including zoonotic transmission and spillover, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), or other sources of origin, transmission, or spillover, based on the information the United States Government has to date».

Chinese whistleblowers are the real heroes

Although the WHO report summary deems a lab leak «extremely unlikely», Chan now believes the debate on SARS-CoV-2 origins is moving in the right direction.

“A year ago, there were few scientists that dared to propose the possibility of a lab leak. I, for one, was very quickly labeled as a conspiracy theorist, in an attempted shut down of the debate,” she says.

“This is no longer possible. It has become clear that the possibility of a lab leak causing the pandemic is real, and it has gotten a foothold in the public debate that is irreversible, at least until we get a definitive answer as to what the origins are”, Chan continues.

Being an early proponent of the lab hypotheses, however, has not come without a cost for Chan:

“I worry for the prospects of my career and my personal safety. Being a well known proponent of the lab hypothesis likely makes it more difficult for me to get my papers peer-reviewed. And I have been targeted by unsavoury emails that make me worry about my safety”.

“When this is all over I am thinking about deleting my Twitter account and changing my name,” Chan muses.

Still, it could however have been worse, Chan says: “I could have been a scientist based in China. The Chinese doctors and scientists who blew the whistle in the early days of covid are the real heroes who faced the greatest danger”.