Column: The COVID lab leak claim isn’t just an attack on science, but a threat to public health
Here’s an indisputable fact about the theory that COVID originated in a laboratory: Most Americans believe it to be true.
That’s important for several reasons. One is that evidence to support the theory is nonexistent. Another is that the claim itself has fomented a surge of attacks on science and scientists that threatens to drive promising researchers out of the crucial field of pandemic epidemiology.
That concern was aired in a commentary by 41 biologists, immunologists, virologists and physicians published Aug. 1 in the Journal of Virology. The journal probably isn’t in the libraries of ordinary readers, but the article’s prose is commendably clear and its conclusions eye-opening.
We now see a long-term risk of having fewer experts engaged in work that may help thwart future pandemics, and of fewer scientists willing to communicate the findings of sophisticated, fast-moving research topics that are important for global health.
— 41 scientists warn of the rise in anti-science disinformation
“The lab leak narrative fuels mistrust in science and public health infrastructures,” the authors observe. “Scientists and public health professionals stand between us and pandemic pathogens; these individuals are essential for anticipating, discovering, and mitigating future pandemic threats. Yet, scientists and public health professionals have been harmed and their institutions have been damaged by the skewed public and political opinions stirred by continued promotion of the lab leak hypothesis in the absence of evidence.”
Before exploring further how the lab leak theory has been exploited to undermine public confidence in science and scientists, let’s examine what’s known and unknown about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.
Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
The so-called zoonosis hypothesis, which is favored by the vast majority of the virological and epidemiological communities, is that the virus reached humans via a spillover from the animal kingdom, probably through the unregulated wildlife trade in Southeast Asia.
“Validating the zoonotic origin is a scientific question that relies on history, epidemiology, and genomic analysis, that when taken together, support a natural spillover as the probable origin,” the Virology paper states.
The lab leak theory holds that SARS-2 was created or manipulated into existence in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and escaped from the lab, whether deliberately or by accident.
The House GOP attacks Anthony Fauci, one of America’s most accomplished public health officials, labeling him a ‘criminal’ and worse without a speck of substantiation
Lab leak adherents bristle at the accusation that they’re conspiracy-mongers. Anthony Fauci, the retired director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the target of some of the most febrile attacks from the anti-science crowd, acknowledged at a June 3 House hearing that the lab leak theory was not inherently a conspiracy theory, conceptually — but that it had been exploited to support some truly crazy conspiracy narratives.
Fauci testified that he remained open to a lab leak narrative in principle, and that if any evidence for it emerged he would consider it seriously. That’s typical of most scientists, especially biologists, who are led by the infinite variability of the natural world to be innately averse to declaring anything conclusively possible or impossible.
The fact is, however, that one can’t advance the lab leak theory without positing a vast conspiracy encompassing scientists in China and the U.S., and Chinese and U.S. government officials. How else could all the evidence of a laboratory event that resulted in more than 7 million deaths worldwide be kept entirely suppressed for nearly five years? Some external hint of the event inevitably would have surfaced somewhere, somehow, by now. None has.
“Validating the lab leak hypothesis requires intelligence evidence that the WIV possessed or carried out work on a SARS-CoV-2 precursor virus prior to the pandemic,” the Virology paper asserts. “Neither the scientific community nor multiple western intelligence agencies have found such evidence.”
Despite that, “the lab leak hypothesis receives persistent attention in the media, often without acknowledgment of the more solid evidence supporting zoonotic emergence,” the paper says. The paper doesn’t name all the media culprits, but they include the independent investigative news site ProPublica and Vanity Fair.
It does take direct aim, however, at the New York Times, which on June 3 published a column by researcher Alina Chan asserting that the “pandemic probably started in a lab.” In a 2021 book, Chan had aired almost identical arguments that were largely refuted by experts in the field. Her more recent article “misrepresents and underplays the existing scientific data supporting a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2,” the Virology paper reported.
EcoHealth Alliance, which developed research allowing humankind to defeat the next viral pandemic, is officially cut off from federal funding. Democrats who connived with the GOP to do this should hang their heads in shame.
I’ve written before about the smears, physical harassment and baseless accusations of fraud and other wrongdoing that lab leak propagandists have visited upon scientists whose work has challenged their claims; similar attacks have targeted experts who have worked to debunk other anti-science narratives, including those about global warming and vaccines.
Some of these attacks have come from elected officials seeking partisan cred, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). They’ve been augmented by figures such as Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
What’s notable about the Virology paper is that it represents a comprehensive and long-overdue pushback by the scientific community against such behavior. More to the point, it focuses on the consequences for public health and the scientific mission from the rise of anti-science propaganda.
Its authors are drawn from the faculties of the state universities of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Florida and Ohio, as well as from Johns Hopkins, Duke and the Cleveland Clinic.
“Scientists have withdrawn from social media platforms, rejected opportunities to speak in public, and taken increased safety measures to protect themselves and their families,” the authors report.
“Some have even diverted their work to less controversial and less timely topics. We now see a long-term risk of having fewer experts engaged in work that may help thwart future pandemics, and of fewer scientists willing to communicate the findings of sophisticated, fast-moving research topics that are important for global health. ... Most worrisome for future preparedness, the next generation of scientists has well-founded fears about entering fields related to emerging viruses and pandemic science.”
The paper revisits the scene at the public interrogation by House Republicans on June 3. “The hearing,” it observes, “was often disrupted and marked by contentious, disrespectful, and unfounded calls for Dr. Fauci to be ‘prosecuted’ and imprisoned for ‘crimes against humanity.’”
By presupposing that evidence of a lab leak has been deliberately suppressed by leading scientists and scientific administrators, its promoters have cast “unsupported blame on scientists, many of whom had warned of the potential threat of, and need for effective countermeasures to prevent, zoonotic transfer of viruses into humans,” the authors write.
Richard Ebright and Bryce Nickels of Rutgers have labeled leading virologists fraudsters, perjurers, felons and murderers. Is this how scientific debate is supposed to be conducted?
At a certain level, the popular embrace of scientific conspiracy theories is understandable. As the Swiss molecular biologist and science writer Philipp Markolin has observed, disinformation relies on myths that provide simple explanations for traumatic world events, like the pandemic, by positing that it was caused by shadowy, powerful actors. There’s never a shortage of grifters and manipulators using this public confusion to their advantage.
Thanks in part to social media, anti-science has become more virulent and widespread, the Virology authors write. Large numbers of researchers into SARS-2 have reported “harassment ranging from personal insults to threats of violence, ‘doxing,’ and personal contact,” according to the paper — of 1,281 scientists in several fields who responded to a survey by Science, 51% said they had experienced at least one form of harassment, sometimes over a period of years.
The Virology authors warn that the vilification of scientists whose research supports the zoonosis hypothesis will leave society defenseless when the next pandemic threat emerges.
“If these narratives are left unchecked, we become a society that dismisses and vilifies those with expertise and experience relevant to the challenges we face,” the authors write. “We then base decisions affecting large populations worldwide on speculation or chosen beliefs that have no grounding in evidence-based science.”
That’s what the future holds if we allow misinformation and disinformation, weaponized by sociopaths seeking financial or partisan gain, to guide our actions. We have been warned.
More to Read
Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik
Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
