Caribbean

Resilience System


You are here

Closer looks and background on Wuhan lab and origins of coronavirus

Primary tabs

NIH experts respond to questions about Wuhan lab at House committee hearing

Renewed interest in a lab-leak hypothesis prompted a few questions about the coronavirus’s origins at a House Appropriations subcommittee meeting Tuesday, amid discussion of the National Institutes of Health budget.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) held up a copy of the Wall Street Journal, referring to its recent story about workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China who became sick in November 2019. Harris asked Francis S. Collins, who directs NIH, whether it was correct that $600,000 of $3.7 million in NIH funding, given to the research group EcoHealth Alliance, was directed to the Wuhan facility. That was accurate, Collins said.

Harris also asked whether the agency knew whether gain-of-function research, which artificially enhances the contagiousness or danger of a pathogen, had been conducted there. “They were not approved by NIH to do gain-of-function research,” Collins said.

Anthony S. Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, described this as a “modest collaboration with very respectable Chinese scientists” following the SARS-CoV-1 scare of 2002 and 2003. That virus “unquestionably” went from a bat to an intermediate host and started an epidemic among humans, Fauci said at the hearing.

“You’ve got to go where the action is” to study viruses like these, he said. “You don’t want to study bats in Fairfax County, Virginia, to find out what the animal-human interface is that might lead to a jumping of species.” The $600,000 funded surveillance of coronaviruses in bats, Fauci said, and none of the grant materials would have called for gain-of-function studies. “That categorically was not done.”

Earlier this year, a World Health Organization investigation did not resolve the question of the virus’s origin, although discovering the original animal host can take years. Ebola’s natural reservoir, for instance, remains unknown.

Many scientists who study zoonotic diseases — pathogens that spill from animals to humans — say it’s more likely that this virus jumped to people who were exposed to infected animals. There have been recent calls among experts to investigate the lab hypothesis because an accident has not been ruled out.

 ALSO SEE: Analysis: Timeline for how the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible --Washington Post

The source of the coronavirus that has left more than 3 million people dead around the world remains a mystery. But in recent months, the idea that it emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) — once dismissed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory — has gained new credence.

How and why did this happen? For one, efforts to discover a natural source of the virus have failed. A lack of transparency by China and renewed attention to the activities of the Wuhan lab have led some scientists to say they were too quick to discount a possible link at first.

As a reader service, here is a timeline of key events, including important articles, that have led to this reassessment. In some instances, important information was available from the start but was generally ignored. But in other cases, some experts fought against the conventional wisdom and began to build a credible case, rooted in science, that started to change people’s minds. ...

 

 

Problem, Solution, SitRep, or ?: 
Groups this Group Post belongs to: 
- Private group -
howdy folks
Page loaded in 0.457 seconds.