Parallels
Parallels
"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 for Biosafety Now discussing risky research in virology. You can read his entire series here.
Below is a hybrid essay. The original is a news report on the medical care provided to transgender children in the UK published by the national newspaper The Guardian. On reading was struck by the language and the parallels with the avian influenza Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) debate starting 2012, and the current crisis in scientific discourse. A rewrite was attempted. Roughly two thirds of the essay is from the original news story and given verbatim in italics. The DURC flu narrative is spliced in in plain text. All characters and institutions are fictional. Excerpts from The Guardian are reproduced with permission and thanks. © The Guardian.
Wilkinson review found professionals in the field are scared to discuss views amid risk of reputational damage and online abuse
Jenifer Gomez and William Bainbridge
Fri 12 Apr 2024 14.10 CEST Last modified on Fri 12 Apr 2024 14.22 CEST
Critical thinking and open debate are pillars of scientific and medical research. Yet experienced professionals are increasingly scared to openly discuss their views on DURC modified novel human viruses.
This was the conclusion drawn by Jane Wilkinson in her review of DURC virology, which warned that a toxic debate had resulted in a culture of fear.
Her conclusion was echoed by doctors, academic researchers and scientists, who have said this climate has had a chilling effect on research in an area that is in desperate need of better evidence.
Some said they had been deterred from pursuing what they believed to be crucial studies, saying that merely entering the arena would put their reputation at risk. Others spoke of abuse on social media, academic conferences being shut down, biases in publishing and the personal cost of speaking out.
“In most areas of health, scientific and medical researchers have freedom to answer questions to problems without fear of judgment,” said Dr. Shahram Ghasemi, a virologist at Bingham College, London. “I’ve never quite known a field where the risks are also in how you’re seen and your beliefs. You have to be careful about what you say both in and out of the workplace.”
Shannon O’Neil, a professor of virology at UDL’s Institute of Virology, received abuse after publishing a review of avian influenza DURC. She found that “critical questions” remained around the nature, claims and relevance of published lab studies.
The paper, which summarised the state of relevant research, was met with an immediate backlash. “I’ve been accused of being an anti-virology activist, and that now comes up on Google and is never going to go away,” O’Neil said. “Imagine what it’s like if that is the first thing that comes up when people Google you? Anyone who publishes in this field has got to be prepared for that.”
The lack of plausible claims, highlighted by Wilkinson, has been a subject of growing unease among scientists, according to Dr. Margery Simpson, an infectious disease expert at Rampton University.
In 2020, Simpson conducted a survey of infectious disease experts. The virologists were resolutely pro-GOF research, while bacteriologists had reservations saying they’d never get away with enhancing anthrax virulence or adapting some animal bacterium to the human gut. MDs had many qualms and said their job was to fight disease. They were both non-plussed and stunned by the lack of prior ethical or societal discussion.
“There’s been a shutting down of anybody who has suggested we need to think about a deeper understanding of why this work is still being funded,” she said. The lay public is also baffled and angry as this survey came out when the Delta variant of COVID virus was spreading like wildfire,” she said.
Others have found that commenting publicly on the scientific merits of work by other academics – normally a routine part of media coverage of science and health – has put scientists in the firing line when it comes to DURC virology.
Ghasemi described receiving hate mail on his X feed after congratulating a UK Member of Parliament who had asked a question in the House on the dangers of GOF virology.
“I felt concerns for my safety,” he said. “I find my quotes are weaponised. That is very worrying and most colleagues would never go near this type of topic for that reason.”
Another senior researcher in virology, who wished to remain anonymous, said some virologists had resorted to sharing concerns and views on anonymous WhatsApp groups.
“The bad-mouthing and the social media destruction of people’s reputation and careers is so damning,” the academic said. “Professional people are worried about how they will be characterised on social media and cannot express dissent without it resulting in very aggressive, inappropriate behaviours. It’s causing people to stop talking and just move away from it and not get involved.”
She added: “This isn’t how good scientific debate happens – it happens when people can talk honestly and without fear.”
The risk of being attacked is enough to deter younger researchers from entering the field, O’Neil believes. “It’s tough, I think most people would just walk away. Why risk your reputation? There are many people early in their careers, and I do not blame them one bit, who would not be prepared to accept that,” she said.
The situation hampers efforts to establish a consensus on avian flu DURC and any relevance for cross-species transmission, O’Neil believes. If the best researchers avoid the field, there is a danger it will become dominated by less rigorous scientists and those who have an interest in their results supporting particular beliefs.
After publishing her review, O’Neil was contacted by a senior expert outside the UK who said they had walked away from a study after being told the team would only publish “positive” findings.
Ghasemi says there has been a perception of research being dominated by “a self-selected cohort of people who will be on either side of the fence and perhaps not so interested in advancing the field”. And in the absence of a robust evidence base, there has been greater scope for ideology to fill the knowledge gap.
“Ultimately, I’ve seen completely unhelpful views on both sides,” Ghasemi said. “There’s an overly affirming view of let’s just do everything. This results in what I’d call bro-science. We’re getting that disconnect between evidence and assumed knowledge because the internet is an echo chamber. Then there’s the other side of things – a more rightwing, moralistic view. Unfortunately, some members of the scientific community are immersed in these views.”
This can act as a disincentive for learned societies, funders and scientific journals to become involved at any level.
In an effort to find common ground among academics… that might serve as a springboard for objective research, Simpson attempted to organise a conference… in 2022.
The Royal Society held an open meeting on DURC virology back in 2012. The 2022 meeting conference was to discuss DURC virology in the light of the COVID pandemic, and Wilkinson was due to present her interim findings, alongside speakers with a diverse range of perspectives. There was also a short session planned on the origins of the COVID-19 virus. It was an invite-only academic meeting away from the madding crowds.
“What I wanted to do with the conference was just bring together people with different perspectives,” she said.
However, after fielding significant numbers of complaints and making concessions aimed at achieving a balanced programme, the conference was cancelled… the day before it was due to take place after a “protected whistleblower’s report” was sent in from someone describing themselves as a researcher on anti-science conspiracy theories. Despite reassurances that the conference would be reorganised, it is yet to happen.
Others spoke of the challenge of getting studies published in high-profile journals, raising concerns that some journal editors may prefer to reject studies rather than face potential criticism. As a consequence, manuscripts criticizing or refuting avian flu DURC have a hard time getting published.
Wilkinson said ‘Critics of DURC resort to specialized web discussion sites as social media is too toxic while the established journals just don’t want to know. It’s a sad, sad situation and it’s getting more and more absurd.’
