Virology under the Microscope—a Call for Rational Discourse (150 virologists condemn Republican congressional oversight, dismiss the lab leak hypothesis as "unfounded", cheer gain-of-function research, and call "ill-informed" those who disagree)

Viruses have brought humanity many challenges: respiratory infection, cancer, neurological impairment and immunosuppression to name a few. Virology research over the last 60+ years has responded to reduce this disease burden with vaccines and antivirals. Despite this long history, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented attention to the field of virology. Some of this attention is focused on concern about the safe conduct of research with human pathogens. A small but vocal group of individuals has seized upon these concerns – conflating legitimate questions about safely conducting virus-related research with uncertainties over the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The result has fueled public confusion and, in many instances, ill-informed condemnation of virology. With this article, we seek to promote a return to rational discourse. We explain the use of gain-of-function approaches in science, discuss the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and outline current regulatory structures that provide oversight for virological research in the United States. By offering our expertise, we – a broad group of working virologists – seek to aid policy makers in navigating these controversial issues. Balanced, evidence-based discourse is essential to addressing public concern while maintaining and expanding much-needed research in virology.

Just 30,000 nucleotides of single-stranded RNA, neatly packaged as a coronavirus, brought the world to its knees socially, economically, ethically, and morally during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 has cast a harsh light on the many cracks, fissures and disparities in our public health system, and the inability to broadly come together to face a colossal crisis and focus on the needs of the most vulnerable. However, scientists worked together and responded to the threat with impressive speed, drawing on critical previous research on coronaviruses and other viral systems. Virologists, immunologists and microbiologists from around the globe collaborated together with scientists from allied disciplines, such as infectious diseases and epidemiology. They confronted the virus through research to understand its pathogenesis and transmission, through surveillance to track the emergence of variants, and through the development of rapid tests, vaccines, antivirals and monoclonal antibodies. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic would have claimed a substantially larger number of lives and caused more economic disruption were it not for this unprecedented collaborative scientific response. Nevertheless, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has also brought virology under the microscope with concerns about safety of virology research and the uncertainties around the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Here we provide an evidence- based discourse to address key issues.

Congress has a constitutional mandate to provide oversight to federally funded research. As a new Congress convenes in the United States. there is an opportunity for oversight hearings related to research in virology and the virology community stands ready to partner with Congress and lend our expertise. Our hope is that these hearings will highlight the enormous contributions of virology, including gain-of-function experiments, to human health (Table 1). However, we fear that some may use any such hearings to discredit virology and virologists and – whether intentional or not – add fuel to an anti-science, fear-based movement. Should such hearings lead to Congress legislating restrictions on scientific research, the outcome could impede our ability to predict, prepare, and respond to emerging viral threats. An equally devastating outcome would be to sow even more public distrust in science, which would limit our ability to confront viruses in general and increase the human burden from viral diseases.

A major point of contention in discussions of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the origin of SARS-CoV-2, with two major camps arguing that the virus either originated from animal-to-human transmission (zoonosis) or by a laboratory leak (1–3). Most virologists have been open-minded about the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2 and have formed opinions based on the best available evidence, as is done for all scientific questions (4). While each of these possibilities is plausible and have been investigated, currently the zoonosis hypothesis has the strongest supporting evidence (5–8). Zoonosis involves transmission of the virus as a consequence of close proximity between humans and wild animals, a scenario that has occurred repeatedly over time, leading to the emergence of many viruses, including Ebola virus, other coronaviruses, influenza A virus, mpox virus, and others (9–11). The lab-origin hypothesis suggests an accident at best or nefarious actors at the worst. At this time and based on the available data, there is no compelling evidence to support either of these lab-origin scenarios. It is important that scientists, the public, and public figures follow the evidence and limit speculation that can become fodder for misinformation and conspiracy theories. For example, on January 1, 2023, USA Today published an article discussing where the next pandemic could originate and disproportionately emphasized risk from manmade threats and lab accidents while minimizing the fact that most pandemics are zoonoses and never mentioning how virological research could mitigate risk (12). Unfounded accusations of a lab leak event or nefarious research in Chinese laboratories will hasten the deterioration of important partnerships between the US and China that are critical for early detection and preparedness for seasonal influenza and future pandemics.

Despite the paucity of evidence for a laboratory-origin of SARS-CoV-2, discussion of this possibility has driven a second controversy to the forefront of science policy discussion: the use of gain-of-function approaches in virology. Although the phrase ‘gain-of-function’ is very problematic and inexact, it is commonly used, and we will use it here cautioning all its limitations (13). The source of concern in this area is that changing a virus to add new functionality may yield a dangerous pathogen. It is important to understand, however, that gain-of-function approaches incorporate a large proportion of all research because they are a powerful genetic tool in the laboratory. These include the development of cancer therapeutics, bacterial strategies for bioremediation, and the engineering of drought- or pest-resistant crops (Table 2). For example, some oncolytic viruses used to treat cancer mediate their effects because, using gain-of-function approaches, they have been endowed with new properties that kill tumors. At least two FDA-approved products resulted from providing viruses with new functions (Table 2). Gain-of-function research with pathogens of pandemic potential established that avian influenza viruses have the capacity to acquire mammalian transmissibility and that bat-associated coronaviruses posed a danger to humans years before COVID-19 (Table 2).

Despite these clear benefits, a narrative has developed suggesting that gain-of-function research is synonymous with high-risk or nefarious activity to engineer or enhance pandemic pathogens. In truth, gain-of-function research is a valuable experimental approach that virologists use to address essential questions. Virologists do not take their work lightly and thoughtfully propose experiments to address essential questions. Virologists do not operate in isolation to judge the risks of experiments: layers of regulation are in place such that risks are considered by individuals with diverse perspectives and expertise (Fig. 1). The vast majority of virology experiments could not enhance pandemic potential (referred to in the United States. as gain-of-function research-of-concern). Those rare experiments that could are currently subject to stringent oversight through the U.S. Government under programs known as dual-use- research-of-concern (DURC) (14) and potential-pandemic-pathogens-care-and-oversight (P3CO) (15) (Fig. 2), and also by the vast majority of international publishers, including the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) and the Public Library of Science (PLOS) (Fig. 3). There are clearly experiments where the risks outweigh the benefits, and it is important that mechanisms exist to prevent such experiments. However, in many cases, gain-of-function research-of-concern can very clearly advance pandemic preparedness and the development of vaccines and antivirals. These tangible benefits often far outweigh the theoretical risks posed by modified viruses. Thus, it is important that oversight mechanisms faithfully consider both risks and benefits of these types of studies. It is equally important that the mechanisms used to provide oversight of gain-of-function research-of-concern be focused on research that is indeed of concern. Identifying research of concern is complex but it is critical that safeguards be both thoughtfully designed and implemented to avoid suppressing innovation in a field essential to mitigating infectious disease threats and with the potential to transform health.

Without qualification, appropriate precautions should be taken to minimize laboratory accidents or the unjustified engineering of pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential. This is a shared goal for scientists and regulators. Virological research in the United States. is subject to federal regulation through the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for work involving human, animal, and plant pathogens. Federal policies are guided by the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) guidelines (16) published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and implemented by Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs) that manage the safety and practice of laboratory research at the local level (Fig. 1). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) established guidelines for the creation of IBCs in 1976 and updates these guidelines periodically. While each institution may have additional specific policies, the NIH requires that IBCs approve of research involving genetic manipulation of pathogens and that members of the local community are engaged through their inclusion on IBCs. As noted above, further oversight for research involving viruses with pandemic potential exists at multiple levels, including federal funding agencies (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense), institutions (e.g., colleges, universities, and research institutes), and most accredited publishers of scientific research (Fig. 2 and 3) (17). It is important that we work to ensure appropriate and consistent implementation of these existing safeguards. We should also seek to develop international partnerships to ensure appropriate oversight is in place worldwide. While policy and infrastructure should frequently be reassessed with the goal of updating and improving biosafety and biosecurity, policy should not be changed rashly and without consideration of potential unintended consequences. Given the scientific complexities involved, such decisions should not be legislated. They should instead be made after full consideration by scientists with the relevant expertise – with appropriate oversight from Congress. Conclusion.

As we enter the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that the scientific establishment has been the most effective shield protecting humanity from this calamity through the delivery of rapid tests, vaccines, antibody therapies, and small molecule antivirals. Millions are alive today that would otherwise be dead thanks to society’s investment in creating and maintaining a vibrant scientific enterprise. In the debate on further restrictions around gain-of-function research and new regulations on virology in general, it is important to appreciate the existing framework of regulations at the federal and institutional levels. It is also critical to recognize that our ability to respond rapidly to emerging viral threats is dependent on our ability to apply the tools of modern biology to viruses. Regulations that are redundant with current practice or overly cumbersome will lead to unwarranted constraints on pandemic preparation and response and could leave humanity more vulnerable to future disease outbreaks. Gain-of-function research has been an extremely valuable tool in the development of vaccines and antivirals (Table 2). It already has layers of regulations and checks in place to ensure that potentially unsafe research is immediately reported (Fig. 2). It is critical that policy makers, virologists, and biosafety experts work together to ensure that research is conducted safely, with the common goal of reducing the burden of disease caused by viruses.

The opinions expressed reflect those of the authors, and not necessarily the opinions of ASM, the authors’ institutions, or funding agencies. We acknowledge Johnny Chang for his assistance with graphics.

No funding was used to support this commentary, but we wish to disclose funding from agencies received by authors. JCA None WJA NIH DCA NIH JDB NIH BWB CIHR, NSERC LB Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, ICGEB SBM NIH DB NIH, Private Foundation DBM Private Foundation DCB NIH, Private Foundation ACB NIH SB None CRB NIH, NSF, Private Foundation AJB USDA, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), UK CBB NIH, DOD CEC NIH SKC NIH PC NIH AC NIH GCC NIH ARC NIH, Private Foundation JMC NIH KC NIH BD NIH MDD NIH, Burroughs Wellcome Investigators in the Pathogenesis of Infectious Disease Program KD None JAD NIH, Private Foundation TSD NIH, Private Foundation, Heinz Endowments JDD Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada DD NIH RRD NIH, USDA, Private Foundation WPD NIH, Zoetis LLC, Moderna, Coalition for Epidemics Preparedness Initiatives (CEPI) RED NIH NCE NIH, Howard Hughes Medical Institute ME NIH LWE None BAF NSF AFS NIH MLF NSF, USDA, Private Foundation LF Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) MBF NIH, Novavax, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, BARDA, Eli Lilly KF NIH, DOD, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation MUG NIH MMG NIH, Private Foundation TG NIH DG NIH, Private Foundation AG-S NIH, DOD, Private Foundation APG NIH BAG NIH, Howard Hughes Medical Institute SPG NIH, Private Foundation FG NIH ALG None MHH NIH EH NIH NSH NIH, DOD, Private Foundation MTH NIH EEH NIH, Private Foundation BGH NIH, NSF SMH NIH ECH UK Medical Research Council, UK Medical Research Council JMH NIH MJI NIH, Via Nova Therapeutics WTJ NIH RFK NIH JPK NIH SMK NIH FK German research foundation (DFG), European research council (ERC) DMK NIH TK NIH, Moderna ML NIH LL NIH SSL NIH RAL NIH ASL NIH, Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Flu Lab, CDC BL NIH, NSF, Private Foundation DAL NIH SL NIH, Private donor's fund, Ohio State. startup fund RML NIH CBL NIH ACL NIH, Private Foundation MAL NIH JML NIH BM NIH GM NIH MTM NIH, DHS AMehle NIH, Private Foundation WAM NIH, Plant Sciences Institute, Iowa State University IM NIH CM NIH NJM NIH AMoscona NIH BCM NIH KM NIH JCM NIH EAM NIH MHN NIH JAN NIH CJN None JZN NIH CMO None AO NIH WAO NIH, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation DAO NIH, Private Foundation JHJO NIH JSP NIH CRP NIH, Private Foundation AP NIH, Private Foundation, CDC PEP NIH JKP NIH, Private Foundation RKP NIH, DOD, Gilead Sciences, Enanta Pharmaceuticals SJP None JGP NIH DP NIH, Private Foundation MQM NIH, Private Foundation RR NIH CMR NIH, Private Foundation RJR NIH CJR NIH RS-G NIH MS NIH LMS NIH, Cornell University, Private donors, Fast Grants SS None JWS NIH SSC NIH, Private Foundation BLS NIH TS NIH, DOD GS NIH, Private Foundation VS NIH, Private Foundation GAS NIH, USDA JGS NIH KRS NIH MLS start-up funds from the University of Florida KS Australian government, NHRMC WIS NIH MSS NIH TCS NIH, USDA AWT NIH VLT NIH, Private Foundation BT NIH, DOD, Private Foundation SAT NIH SMT NIH ZT NIH KVD NIH, Private Foundation MV None NAW NIH DW NIH MPW Medical Research Council, UK (MR/W025647/1); UKRI mpox research consortium (BB/X011143/1) JBW NIH MDW NIH SKW NIH EAW NIH, Private Foundation SPJW NIH, Private Foundation, USAID, Vir Biotechnology BRGW Private Foundation CEW NIH, University of Michigan SWW NIH ADY NIH.

The majority of evidence seems to point to:

“The created a biological weapon, by using gain of function techniques, in North Carolina. When new laws made that illegal in the US, the NIH used its connections, public money, and leadership to continue in Wuhan China. There, the laws could be bypassed, research continued in cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party.

Then, the virus escaped this nearly brand new lab. The Chines government did all in its power to prevent that knowledge of the Wuhan lab, its activities, and the infection from being know worldwide. Then, they started to close sections of China, but allowed the infected to board planes to the rest of the world. Forces here, all Democrats, decried racism and orange man bad, when efforts were made to stop this. Nearly the moment the virus reached our shores, teams of Democratic lawyers had been organized to subvert state election laws here in the US.”

Now these virologists want me to believe the ‘bat soup’ unfounded and undocumented Fascist propaganda, that would make Goebels proud….
Sorry, not happening without huge evidence to support.

They replaced the term. It’s why Fauxi was so pompous when questioned. In fact, he’s never been questioned using the correct terminology which, btw, I’ve outlined here too many times to count. It really is asinine that they’re resting their laurels on semantics, but it’s true, and they keep gaslighting it every chance they get to maintain the narrative.

IMHO

Meanwhile every person with virology, immunology 101 told the world that a respiratory RNA virus will mutate so fast as to evade vaccines.
Just like the flu… they perform hyperviralization, aka gain of function just like they have for decades, until Obama defunded it in 2014ish in the US as too dangerous.
What he really meant was offshored it to get rid of oversight. With our corrptocratic bureaucracy that’s saying something.
So the paid experts were not just wrong. They lied and continue to do so with corrupt cash.

Is this much like the list of 51 former intelligence experts who determined the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian “misinformation”? In other words, they were given a conclusion to reach and created the research to come up with that conclusion.

If the Chicoms were sure of their lab’s innocence on the matter they would not have been obsfucating about the issue from day one.

They have long since destroyed any evidence and buried anyone with knowledge about it.

It is important that scientists, the public, and public figures follow the evidence and limit speculation that can become fodder for misinformation and conspiracy theories... Unfounded accusations of a lab leak event or nefarious research in Chinese laboratories will hasten the deterioration of important partnerships between the US and China...

This is totally awesome bullshilt.

Probably all these authors get piles of government money from CDC. It's mostly welfare for the scientists and organizations who have them on staff. This is just another righteous sounding plea to keep the money train rolling along.

Read this book. It reveals what a dangerous scam current vaccine "research and development" is, not to mention how outright dangerous it is and especially to children...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.