Coronavirus: scientists on WHO mission to China say time is running out to trace virus origins
- Some studies will be ‘biologically impossible’ once the window of opportunity for crucial inquiry closes, 11 scientists write in Nature journal
- The investigators’ six priorities for a second phase of inquiry would include seeking earlier cases inside and outside China and looking for animal hosts
“The window of opportunity for conducting this crucial inquiry is closing fast: any delay will render some of the studies biologically impossible,” wrote the group of 11 independent scientists in a comment published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.
The experts took part earlier this year in a four-week WHO-backed field mission to Wuhan, China, where the virus that causes Covid-19 was first identified. They have called for action to “fast-track” now “stalled” scientific work needed to understand how the pathogen emerged.
Beijing has flatly rejected a WHO proposal for phase two research announced last month, as officials balked at the inclusion of laboratory audits in the proposal, an apparent move to further explore the theory that the virus could have emerged from a Wuhan laboratory studying related viruses.
WHO calls for ‘spirit of partnership’ in hunt for Covid-19 origins
The hypothesis has gained traction in recent months among some in the scientific community who say a thorough probe needs to examine this possibility alongside the competing hypothesis that the virus emerged through natural contact with infected animals, a route considered most likely by the WHO team following their mission.
It is also favoured by a number of prominent experts, who typically point to the diversity of these viruses in nature and the possibility for them to spill over in the animal trade and wet markets, like the one associated with a number of early cases in Wuhan.
The team said they did not find conclusive evidence for any theory on their mission, which largely reviewed research by Chinese scientists and concluded with a joint report released in March.
But they have received criticism for not more thoroughly examining the lab leak theory and deeming it “extremely unlikely” in the report. The report‘s recommendations did not call for further research into the theory, barring new evidence, and received resistance from WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who included laboratory audits in the WHO proposal for phase two studies, and last month said there was a “premature push” to minimise the option.
In their Nature commentary, the 11 scientists, who were selected for the mission from countries including the Netherlands, Russia, Japan and Britain, defended their handling of the theory.
They said that even though the lab-leak theory was not in the terms of reference handed to them by the WHO, they found it “too important to ignore”, adding it to their hypotheses and questioning lab directors at three Wuhan facilities handling related viruses about biosafety and signs of illness among staff in the months leading up the outbreak.
“When we reviewed the responses to our questions on this issue, and all other available data, we found no evidence for leads to follow up; we reported this fact,” wrote the Nature co-authors, who did not include any of the WHO officials also on the mission to Wuhan.
Why is the US investigating the origins of the coronavirus?
They also addressed critiques about a lack of adequate data-sharing from China during the mission, noting that during the course of their work “much new information” was provided. They did, however, note limitations to this, including a “reluctance” by the Chinese team to share raw data, such as that relating to early patients, citing patient confidentiality.
“Applying this new process to the continuing Sars-CoV-2 origins mission runs the risk of adding several months of delay. Member-state representatives would need to negotiate detailed terms around the sensitive issue of investigating laboratory practices, then nominate and select team members, who would then have to develop a work plan,” the scientists said.
Lost time meant it could become impossible to search for critical clues, such as traces of past infection in human and animal blood, as the two-year anniversary of the virus’ suspected emergence in humans approached, they said.
When asked whether phase two research might already have been moving forward in China if the lab audits were not included in the WHO proposal, team member and Dutch virologist Marion Koopmans told the South China Morning Post she thought there was general agreement about “a large part of the studies”, which “could have started months ago”.
“Bringing in the lab audits runs the risk of further delays. I am not saying they should not be discussed, as this is a clear wish from several member states, but it is certainly something China has responded to and is a different type of approach that is difficult to combine with a scientific mission,” she said.
Instead, the team writing in Nature laid out six priorities for a second phase of studies in China and elsewhere, which they said they had also presented to the WHO.
