Sense not Sagas
"On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology.
Since January 2024, Dr. Wain-Hobson has written weekly essays discussing risky research in virology that were originally published on the Biosafety Now website.
We will republish these essays on our Substack every Friday, so the full archive will become available under the “On Reading” tab at the top of our Substack homepage.
This is not the first editorial on COVID origins although it comes on the heels of the US intelligence community report involving the degree of confidence different government agencies had in the possibility of a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. You’d have thought that without solid data the jury would be out (Flights from reason). That doesn’t stop the editorial from writing peer-reviewed evidence available to the public points to the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a result of spillover into humans from a natural origin.
There is an intrinsic bias. Major science journals have shunned manuscripts, comments and perspectives galore on the lab leak hypothesis while publishing papers arguing for a natural spillover based on precedent. Accordingly, this remark is flimsy.
A few sentences downstream we read that, Many genomic studies report that SARS-CoV-2 has nucleotide differences that could only have arisen through natural selection and such differences are evenly spread throughout the genome. The remark about mutations across the genome reflects the belief that the lab leak involved an engineered virus with, presumably, the Spike gene spliced in from another virus. This is only one of several possibilities, so inconclusive. Next, the reference sequence. RaTG13 was never a credible reference. Post 2022, the BANAL group of viruses from Laos, are better. There’s nothing useful in this remark. Onwards.
The editorial moves on to discussion of the lessons that could be learned from solving the question as to the origins of SARS-CoV-2. An evidence base that supported the laboratory hypothesis might result in stricter regulations for research of biorisks. Going down this rabbit hole, there is no mention of the monumental slap in the face this would be to virology and science. The embarrassment and massive loss of public trust? Nothing. The sentiment is that upgrading lab security should do the trick. Breath-taking on behalf of a medical journal.
The hypotheses debate is reminiscent of the discussions on the origins of HIV. In the late 1980s and ‘90s a now-debunked hypothesis that a batch of the oral polio vaccine introduced HIV similarly captured media attention but was eventually refuted following publication of many robust genomic and phylogenetic studies. Not exactly. In 1999 journalist Ed Hooper published a book suggesting that oral polio vaccine (OPV) campaigns in the late ‘50s in the Rift valley region of central Africa precipitated the AIDS pandemic. Naturally it was trashed.
Nature Medicine asked On reading to review the book, pronto. Obviously, it was going to be easy to find the weak spot, right? Three days and >1000 pages later, the hypothesis remained, no fatal flaw was obvious. Of course, that doesn’t make it true. The review ended thus: In the words of Oliver Cromwell on the decision of the English Parliament to behead King Charles the First: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” That didn’t go down well with colleagues - take that as English understatement.
Hooper had the support of the most original Bill Hamilton, Kyoto Prize winner. Hamilton went to war torn NE Zaire to recover chimp fecal samples to get them tested for simian immunodeficiency viruses. They all proved to be negative. In search of data Hamilton contracted malaria, was repatriated to the UK, but sadly died. This led to an open meeting at the Royal Society to honor him by discussing the oral polio vaccine origins hypothesis.
All the key protagonists were there, as were journalists. A press conference drew five TV crews. So open. By this time scientists had started to address the hypothesis from a scientific perspective. The massive genetic variation of HIV from numerous strains from Zaire didn’t square with the OPV hypothesis, something amply confirmed subsequently. Furthermore, old OPV samples proved negative for an HIV like virus.
These findings were compounded by lightweight presentations by Hooper and supporters. More than one journalist was thrown by the conference – dixit if you’d had something to hide you wouldn’t have organized an open meeting. The OPV hypothesis died a natural death by addressing head on the thorn-in-the-side-of-science scenario and doing so in public.
Origins of HIV research spanned more than a decade of work with input from many groups. Over time the community pulled off some excellent science. It generated knowledge and after the dark years that characterized the beginning of AIDS, it closed a hole in human enquiry which was fitting. Basically, there was wave of viruses spreading through most species of monkeys in Equatorial Africa, which in turn spread to chimps and gorillas. Presumably through hunting they spilt over to man. Of the many crossovers only one, HIV-1 M, went pandemic.
There was an interesting and totally unexpected twist. In 2008 a group found DNA remnants in the genomes of lemurs from Madagascar suggesting that HIV-like viruses had been around for millions of years.
And even then, it wasn’t over. More than 25 years after the first HIV lookalike was found in chimpanzees, scientists were rummaging around and recovering early US samples, including that of the so-called patient zero from the early 1970s and recovering HIV by PCR.
More differences? From the outset there was no quarrel. Sure, the AIDS denialists were supported by a well-known retrovirologist, but this was always minor. The arguments were quickly demolished once scientists addressed the science instead of exchanging ad hominem remarks. For the record, Nature gave the denialists a full page right of reply! Even so, it was over.
By contrast, the COVID origins debate has been one sided with some lightweight papers with inadmissible language in favor of a natural origin. The lab leak hypothesis was a heresy and ostracized, even though it is now recognized as a credible hypothesis. And all this on a background of a lack of data. There have been no apologies, let alone retractions. Empty rhetoric has sadly been in play in too many peer-reviewed papers. That is a professional failure for scientists must hold themselves to a high standard. All this make you wonder about self-governance (1918 and all that, The sound of silence).
So no, the two origins sagas were very different. Once they had made amends (Perilous posturing) the HIV/AIDS community took things head on and openly. This should not be a scoop or an exception. In science, only data helps distinguish between competing hypotheses.
Aside
What about a tightly argued one pager on the lab leak hypothesis in Nature?