Specialist Opinion
"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.
This is a survey of scientists’ opinions regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is accompanied by a detailed methodological and analytical annex. It is worth delving into it and On reading will highlight just a few points. Like many polls the usable response rate was low, 168/1138 or 15%, but apparently not uncharacteristically so. Respondents fell into four groups with differing backgrounds, aka epidemiology, virology, biosafety/biosecurity and evolutionary genetics, the former two dominating the ensemble (90% of replies).
Faced with the direct question four out of five experts stated that a natural zoonotic origin was more than 50% likely. These answers cut across the board and didn’t correlate with any category of specialists. Observation here will be kept to a minimum as nothing replaces reading the original. However, that 21% bent in favour of a research related accident is huge. The whole point of the poll was to go for hard core science experts and avoid the fringe. The obvious conclusion is that there is a silent minority ready to speak out if anonymity is guaranteed.
The next question was whether more origin research is needed. A whopping 51% stated that major gaps remain, while 37% stated that the topic has been well studied but could benefit from some additional research. Agreed. However, this immediately sets up a conflict with the first question. If major gaps remain, which is also the opinion of the head of the WHO to mention just one example, how can a scientist have a strong opinion as to origins of the COVID-19 virus? Interestingly, the poll was careful and used words like belief and believe which may be the best way to present the findings.
Nine out of ten experts stated that the next pandemic is “most likely” to originate from natural zoonosis. Only 14 experts (8%) selected a research-related accident as “most likely”. Ninety percent doesn’t surprise as a zoonosis is the most likely scenario. After all, even though virologists can now make novel and dangerous human viruses, it doesn’t mean that nature, sometimes called the most notorious bioterrorist, will cease to play devastating microbial chess.
Under both origin scenarios, a majority of the experts who responded suggested more aggressive governance measures. Yet another silent opinion apparently. On reading has covered some pushback articles on GOF and proposed regulations from members of the American Society of Microbiology (Going places, Flights from reason and Perilous posturing). Silent opinions have probably remained so for more than a decade given the chill that fell on virology (Chilled virology). It’s tough (Sound of silence).
A most revealing finding is tucked away in the methods section. Question 9 was Please indicate which, if any, of the following studies/reports you are familiar with… There were eight references which started off with the notorious Proximal Origins paper. The last was Hanlen et al (2022) ‘Microbiological origins of SARS-CoV-2’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The only problem was this last option was a fake publication to check for respondent truthfulness/competence/attention. Surprisingly 33% of respondents answered positively to the question, whether they were self-described as epidemiologists or virologists. It was a glorious quality control question. Interestingly, there was a statistically significant difference between whether the respondent was from a developing or developed geographical category. Hanlen et al. was more familiar to respondents from the latter!
The seventh question was less amusing but nonetheless telling. Eleven % answered that they were familiar with none of these studies. And yet they answered poll questions! Go figure.
The opinion poll is unlikely to change anything. However, it highlights the occasional but unbearable lightness of being an expert, ever ready to defend science when questioned, even if unversed in the literature. Especially when they know more origin research is needed.
Devastating.
Journalists, next time, maybe use the word specialists.
It’s as though many have forgotten scientific method and logic, or, worse, never had a chance to discuss the scientific/knowledge endeavour. This is not surprising as graduate students for years have been pushed into the front lines by their bosses struggling to stay alive. Neither have time for lateral thinking, big pictures or ethics, let alone morals (Do no harm; Nuclear parallels, Sound of silence).
On reading sympathizes with the under 35s and probably wouldn’t do any better if he was at the bench today. It’s a no brainer and insoluble for them. On top of which they are way too young and vulnerable to be whistleblowers (Sound of silence).
Only the older generation can help them out. The problem is they are purveyors of the status quo. Who is going to show some leadership, even a little? How many accidents, how many deaths are needed before anything changes?
Do no harm, do not bullshit. The bar is incredibly low.
Am a non-scientist, helping with polling at public places. Early results:
20% Natural origin
50% Lab
30% Not sure
Creating a pandemic virus in a lab:
10% Acceptable under certain circumstances
20% Banned
50% A Crime
20% Not sure
Have heard the phrase "Gain-of-Function"
15%
(Scientists - suggest using 'Create a pandemic virus' with public, not GofF.)
The amount of over-regulation coming will and should be commensurate with what is being protected. This is not about flying a 757 into a building, it is to guard against destruction even of civilization itself. There is nothing of value, says the public correctly, that justifies, taking even a single gamble where the jackpot is a pandemic like Covid, or worse. Your poll suggests that a random scientists' opinion on bio research and biosafety is upside-down. Bring up criminalization - is it taboo, or a spot of blindness? Probably the latter, given the conflicts having to do with career, prestige, a better paycheck, and freedom to explore? We, the public, are deeply disturbed, and rightly. In this case, this blindness amoung you is evil, insane.
It's early, but if you have knowledge of how to create a pandemic pathogen, or your studies of virus DNA/RNA will give you that knowledge, you might want to look for another profession, unless you're good with being heavily surveilled.