An Appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2

Contact Your Elected Officials

On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called โ€œScience, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humansโ€.1 The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,2 which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: โ€œWe stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural originโ€. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.3 The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: โ€œWe believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journalsโ€. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.

There is so far no scientifically validated evidence that directly supports a natural origin. Among the references cited in the two letters by Calisher and colleagues,1,2 all but one simply show that SARS-CoV-2 is phylogenetically related to other betacoronaviruses. The fact that the causative agent of COVID-19 descends from a natural virus is widely accepted, but this does not explain how it came to infect humans. The question of the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2โ€” ie, the final virus and host before passage to humansโ€”was expressly addressed in only one highly cited opinion piece, which supports the natural origin hypothesis,4 but suffers from a logical fallacy:5 it opposes two hypothesesโ€”laboratory engineering versus zoonosisโ€”wrongly implying that there are no other possible scenarios. The article then provides arguments against the laboratory engineering hypothesis, which are not conclusive for the following reasons. First, it assumes that the optimisation of the receptor binding domain for human ACE2 requires prior knowledge of the adaptive mutations, whereas selection in cell culture or animal models would lead to the same effect. Second, the absence of traces of reverse-engineering systems does not preclude genome editing, which is performed with so-called seamless techniques.6,7 Finally, the absence of a previously known backbone is not a proof, since researchers can work for several years on viruses before publishing their full genome (this was the case for RaTG13, the closest known virus, which was collected in 2013 and published in 2020).8 Based on these indirect and questionable arguments, the authors conclude in favour of a natural proximal origin. In the last part of the article, they briefly evoke selection during passage (ie, experiments aiming to test the capacity of a virus to infect cell cultures or model animals) and acknowledge the documented cases of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV, but they dismiss this scenario, based on the argument that the strong similarity between receptor binding domains of SARS-CoV-2 and pangolins provides a more parsimonious explanation of the specific mutations. However, the pangolin hypothesis has since been abandoned,9โ€“12 so the whole reasoning should be re-evaluated Although considerable evidence supports the natural origins of other outbreaks (eg, Nipah, MERS, and the 2002โ€“04 SARS outbreak) direct evidence for a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 is missing. After 19 months of investigations, the proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 is still lacking. Neither the host pathway from bats to humans, nor the geographical route from Yunnan (where the viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been sampled) to Wuhan (where the pandemic emerged) have been identified. More than 80 000 samples collected from Chinese wildlife sites and animal farms all proved negative.13 In addition, the international research community has no access to the sites, samples, or raw data. Although the Joint WHO-China Study concluded that the laboratory origin was โ€œextremely unlikelyโ€,13 WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared that all hypotheses remained on the table including that of a laboratory leak.14

A research-related origin is plausible. Two questions need to be addressed: virus evolution and introduction into the human population. Since July, 2020, several peer-reviewed scientific papers have discussed the likelihood of a research-related origin of the virus. Some unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence suggest that they may have resulted from genetic engineering,15,16 an approach widely used in some virology labs.17 Alternatively, adaptation to humans might result from undirected laboratory selection during serial passage in cell cultures or laboratory animals,5,18,19 including humanised mice.20 Mice genetically modified to display the human receptor for entry of SARS-CoV-2 (ACE2) were used in research projects funded before the pandemic, to test the infectivity of different virus strains.21 Laboratory research also includes more targeted approaches such as gain-of-function experiments relying on chimeric viruses to test their potential to cross species barriers.17,22

A research-related contamination could result from contact with a natural virus during field collection, transportation from the field to a laboratory,23 characterisation of bats and bat viruses in a laboratory, or from a non-natural virus modified in a laboratory. There are well-documented cases of pathogen escapes from laboratories.24โ€“27 Field collection, field survey, and in-laboratory research on potential pandemic pathogens require high-safety protections and a strong and transparent safety culture. However, experiments on SARS-related coronaviruses are routinely performed at biosafety level 2,22,28 which complies with the recommendations for viruses infecting non-human animals, but is inappropriate for experiments that might produce human-adapted viruses by effects of selection or oriented mutations.

Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out. On the basis of the current scientific literature, complemented by our own analyses of coronavirus genomes and proteins,5,15,16,18,29,30 we hold that there is currently no compelling evidence to choose between a natural origin (ie, a virus that has evolved and been transmitted to humans solely via contact with wild or farmed animals) and a research-related origin (which might have occurred at sampling sites, during transportation or within the laboratory, and might have involved natural, selected, or engineered viruses).

An evidence-based, independent, and prejudice-free evaluation will require an international consultation of high-level experts with no conflicts of interest, from various disciplines and countries; the mandate will be to establish the different scenarios, and the associated hypotheses, and then to propose protocols, methods, and required data in order to elucidate the question of SARS-CoV-2โ€™s origin. Beyond this issue, it is important to continue debating about the riskโ€“benefit balance of current practices of field and laboratory research, including gain-of-function experiments, as well as the human activities contributing to zoonotic events.

Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses. As scientists, we need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts. Contrary to the first letter published in The Lancet by Calisher and colleagues,2 we do not think that scientists should promote โ€œunityโ€ (โ€œWe support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjectureโ€). As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture. More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy. Departing from this principle risks establishing dogmas, abandoning the essence of science, and, even worse, paving the way for conspiracy theories. Instead, the scientific community should bring this debate to a place where it belongs: the columns of scientific journals.31,32

JvH, CDB, ED, and JH contributed equally. They wrote the first version of the manuscript, integrated the other authorsโ€™ modifications, and managed the interactions with the editors. All the other authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and acknowledged the latest version. We declare no competing interests.

*Jacques van Helden, Colin D Butler, Guillaume Achaz, Bruno Canard, Didier Casane, Jean-Michel Claverie, Fabien Colombo, Virginie Courtier, Richard H Ebright, Franรงois Graner, Milton Leitenberg, Serge Morand, Nikolai Petrovsky, Rossana Segreto, Etienne Decroly, Josรฉ Halloy jacques.van-helden@univ-amu.fr Lab Theory and Approaches of Genome Complexity, INSERM, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France (JvH); National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CDB); Universitรฉ de Paris, Musรฉum National dโ€™Histoire Naturelle, Collรจge de France, Paris, France (GA); Universitรฉ de Paris, CNRS, Laboratoire Evolution, Gรฉnomes, Comportement, Ecologie, Gif-sur-Yvette, France (DC); Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France (J-MC); Universitรฉ Bordeaux Montaigne, MICA, Pessac, France (FC); Ecole Polytechnique, Universitรฉ de Paris, CNRS, Institut Jacques Monod, Paris, France (VC); Architecture et Fonction des Macromolรฉcules Biologiques, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France (BC, ED); Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology and Waksman Institute, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, USA (RHE); MSC, Universitรฉ de Paris, CNRS UMR 7057, Paris, France (FG); School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA (ML); Institut des Sciences de lโ€™Evolution, CNRS, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France (SM); University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria (RS); College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia (NP); LIED, CNRS UMR 8236, Universitรฉ de Paris, Paris, France (JH).

See All References in PDF below.

Published Online
September 17, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02019-5

An Appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 PDF

Appeal-For-Objective-Scientific-Debate-About-Orgins-SARS-CoV-2

The Thinking Conservative
The Thinking Conservativehttps://www.thethinkingconservative.com/
The goal of THE THINKING CONSERVATIVE is to help us educate ourselves on conservative topics of importance to our freedom and our pursuit of happiness. We do this by sharing conservative opinions on all kinds of subjects, from all types of people, and all kinds of media, in a way that will challenge our perceptions and help us to make educated choices.

Remember Epsteinโ€™s โ€œLittle Black Booksโ€?

Image of Bill Clinton getting a massage from Jeffrey...

On the Major Leagueโ€™s periphery: A major trip through the minors

For Nick Dunn, the trek through the minors is a trifecta of physical, mental, and organizational hurdles filled with politics, roster volatility, and injuries.

Private Citizens are Now Looking into Epstein Client List

Most Americans have never felt so betrayed and confused by a president and his admin as they are by the Trump admin over the Epstein client list issue.

Peace In Ukraine Wonโ€™t End The Westโ€™s Hybrid War On Russia

The Westโ€™s Hybrid War on Russia to follow peace in Ukraine is inevitable due to neoconservatives and liberal-globalists in its decision-making ecosystem.

Epstein Case Closed?

The DOJ and FBI announced on Sunday evening of the July 4th holiday weekend that Jeffry Epstein had no client list and didnโ€™t kill himself in prison.

Federal Judge Blocks Trumpโ€™s Birthright Citizenship Order After Supreme Court Ruling

Judge barred Trump admin from enforcing EO limiting birthright citizenship, after Supreme Court restricted judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

California Might Stop Making Necessary Debt Payments for 2 Years

California State Legislature met the budget submission deadline and it was signed by the governor, but they still need to cut $12 billion in spending.

MP Materials Secures Rare Earths Deal With DOD, Shares Surge 50 Percent

MP Materials Corp. announced a public-private partnership with the DOD to build out rare earth magnet supply chain and reduce dependency on China.

Ex-CIA Director Brennan Says DOJ Hasnโ€™t Contacted Him About an Investigation

Former CIA Dir Brennan said he hasn't been contacted by DOJ, FBI, or CIA following reports he and former FBI Dir. Comey are under investigation.

RFK Jr. Bans Illegal Immigrants From Government-Funded Programs

HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is rescinding a 1998 interpretation of a law that allowed illegal immigrants to access certain government-funded programs.

Rubio Set to Visit Malaysia for ASEAN Meetings Amid Tariff Tensions

A delegation including U.S. Sec. of State Marco Rubio will travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, for series of high-profile meetings between July 11 and 12.

US Will Collect More Than $300 Billion in Tariff Revenues This Year, Treasury Secretary Says

U.S. is on track to potentially raise โ€œwell over $300 billionโ€ in tariff income by end of the year, Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent said during WH Cabinet meeting.

Senate Panel Advances Trumpโ€™s CDC Director Nominee

A Senate committee on July 9 voted to advance the nomination of Susan Monarez to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
spot_img

Related Articles