We The Virologists

"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.

Treetops, Rome 1916, gouache on paper, Joseph Marius Avy (1879-1939)

On reading Virology—The next fifty years by Edward Holmes, Florian Krammer and Felicia Goodrum, Cell 2024; 187:5128-45.

---

It is courageous to say the least to look even 10 to 20 years into the future of any field, such is the pace of scientific change across the board. Already, Geoffrey Hinton, 2024 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, has shortened the odds of AI wiping out humanity over the next 30 years.

Hinton’s remarks come on the back of a call to ban research into Mirror Life, a novel form of life that might be hard to contain, for lab accidents occur (Lab acquired infections). In the case of the present forward-looking paper, things are simpler. It was commissioned to celebrate the 50 years of the top scientific journal Cell.

We will not gaze into virology’s crystal ball but move straight to the conclusion of the paper given that We stand at an unprecedented time in the history of virology. The worth of much of the work we and our colleagues have done every day since the birth of Cell is being challenged. Virologists are under intense scrutiny, and our work and intentions are subject to abundant misinformation, misrepresentation, and misunderstanding.

For someone who lived through HIV/AIDS research and saw much controversy condensed into a decade such claims need examining. Yes, the whole of science is under intense scrutiny from climatology to AI to synthetic biology to public health management post COVID. Virology is hardly alone. However, if you take a longer look, you’ll find this has been going on for a while. For example, Stephen Pinker on Nietzsche: a godfather to all the intellectual movements of the 20^th century that were hostile to science and objectivity, including Existentialism, Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Deconstructionism and Postmodernism (Enlightenment Now, 2018).

The authors are talking up their concerns which stem from the 13 year long Gain of Function controversy over adapting bird flu viruses to efficient airborne transmission between humans. This clash was, understandably, amplified and compounded by the COVID lab leak hypothesis. New restrictions on virological research (e.g., gain-of-function, animal sampling, international collaborations) are being imposed. Despite the lack of any direct evidence, the allegation that SARS-CoV-2 had a laboratory origin and the role played by virologists in this will likely be a contentious issue for years to come.

Holmes’ and Goodrum’s unusual positions have been covered in previous essays (Flights from Reason, Perilous Posturing, Cancel Virology and Censoring Virology). Suffice to say they and colleagues have been pushing back on additional government oversight while pushing the natural zoonosis of COVID origins. What is interesting here is the duo direct evidence.

Along with invoking censorship of those discussing the COVID lab leak hypothesis, Dr. Goodrum recently wrote We cannot currently disprove the lab leak hypothesis. As previously noted (Censoring virology) the corollary is that the natural zoonosis hypothesis cannot currently be proven. Which means there isn’t any direct evidence either. Put bluntly, the jury is out. If there was any direct evidence either way, the whole world would have known by now.

The specter of virologists questioned by members of the US Congress for writing a scientific paper should cause widespread disquiet for those who value free, open, and just societies. Oversight is part of government. Most science gets nodded on which makes sense as most isn’t controversial. Yet there are times and topics when oversight is important, nay vital. For example, GOF/DURC and COVID. The independent UK enquiry into the government’s handling of the COVID pandemic shows just how poor much of the advice coming from scientists and public health official was (UK COVID response report). The inability to take lab acquired infections seriously is another example.

So, when oversight occurs see it merely as part and parcel of government. If ever it rises to the level of McCarthyism say so with articulate arguments worthy of scientists. That would garner colossal support.

Virology needs to stand firm in the face of these assaults but also to learn important lessons. Virology, like any science, cannot function without public support. We must better communicate our work and acknowledge where failings occur.

This is glorious nonsense. Virology is not an army of Roman legionaries marching as one for it has no generals. It is a bottom-up endeavor functioning by trial and error performed by virologists who spend a lot of time disagreeing with each other as they try to fathom how viruses do their nasty work. This leads to knowledge and ultimately diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. There’s no need for generals. In fact, they would get in the way, while science administrators are enablers, not leaders.

The GOF virus community has never acknowledged the hollowness of the claims made in favor of the work. They have had ample time and opportunities to acknowledge their errors yet have pushed back on any attempt to rein in this work. Better communicate our work? This illustrates the belief that they are still right. If they wanted to take the temperature down just a notch, they could engage their contradictors. The recent call to action over Mirror Life puts them on the spot.

Their inability to handle dissenting thought and the public shows up time and again, notably: In the face of misinformation, virologists must show the worth of their science for everyday life and the greater society, highlighting the success stories. Virology has played a huge role in reducing the burden of infectious disease and was integral to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without doubt please defend virology against obscurantism but as some insiders screwed up over GOF virology, while the jury is out over COVID origins, accept that some critics beg to differ. Yet there is not an iota of self-doubt among these authors. The past accomplishments and successes of virology are used to beat down any criticism, no matter where it comes from. This is silly as these doubts are unconnected to past success stories.

The current political environment and the anti-science sentiment it has nourished means that we are arguably less well prepared for a pandemic than we were in January 2020. To compound this issue, the assault on virology will deter the next generation of scientists from entering fields driving the science critical to pandemic response.

An assault on virology. Why the verbal violence? This is scaremongering and an attempt to shut down criticism. The paroxysm of this was the call for censuring hypotheses and thought that they banded together to dislike (Censoring Virology). Yet this tactic has been wielded from the beginning of the GOF flu controversy. At the 2012 Royal Society meeting in London more than one professor said that if GOF flu research didn’t proceed, they would have problems recruiting students.

Think about it for a moment. They were balancing the recruitment of students to their own labs with biosafety and perhaps global health. Not surprisingly some members of the public were shocked.

Thereafter follows a liturgy of virology’s highs from smallpox eradication to the pretentious Through virology, we have gained insight into basic cellular processes that are foundational to life. It’s true but spare us the top-down language that doesn’t help your case. The bacteriologists could make a good case of their own – gene cloning using DNA plasmids. Even though On reading is a virologist, he has a soft spot for the chlorination of drinking water which should never be forgotten.

There is no competition. It’s just that when something doesn’t pan out, or when science hits the public’s interest you rise to the occasion by discussing.

They worked hard on the last sentence: Restricting virology will come at a heavy price yet got it so wrong. Nobody wants to rein in virology especially after COVID-19. The whole world knows something about coronaviruses and understands the need for virology.

There is but one “really tiny part” of virology that needs looking at. And that is GOF/DURC/Risky Research. As the new US Administration will stick its nose into this, better buckle up and prepare some coherent arguments rather than cry wolf. The last 13 years has seen a piteous effort on behalf of the GOF crowd while after 5 years We cannot currently disprove the lab leak hypothesis.

The conclusion of this overview is a classic case where practitioners conflate themselves with the subject. Virology is a wonderful subject and much in this review highlights this, for example Table 1. See Virology is the Queen of the biological sciences for a more irreverent take.

No serious person will challenge the accomplishments in virology, if only the eradication of smallpox that claimed 300 million lives in the 20^th century, although that was very much a public health driven success.

It’s a little like school. A handful of virologists and some science administrators are responsible for the current situation and have brought virology into question. The rest of us get to live with it. They oversold GOF virology (Chilled virology), laid down the ‘facts’ on COVID origins (Proximal origins and Lancet statement) within a month or two of the discovery of a new coronavirus at a moment when there was woefully insufficient data.

The talk was haughty, on a par with ‘We the virologists…’ which is anathema to the way science works.

Everyone needs virology and virologists so let’s work together and have a mature discussion.

---

Aside 1

A number of top science journals, including Cell, have taken sides in the COVID origins debate (Gaslighting). The COVID origins issue will rumble on for people who are curious. It needs answering. Scientists need to generate data that distinguishes between the competing hypotheses. In a December 31, 2024 statement, the WHO said, again, We continue to call on China to share data and access so we can understand the origins of COVID-19. This is a moral and scientific imperative.

---

Aside 2

On reading only has a problem with the erroneous claims stemming from GOF virology and closed positions. A recent paper on which Holmes is one of many is worthy of note as it describes for the first time an RNA virus of the malaria causing parasite Plasmodium knowelsi found in Borneo. This should not surprise as bacteria have viruses, called phages. By contrast, archaebacteria have viruses. This linguistic conundrum was commented on in an earlier essay.

There is even an RNA virus that infects a fungus that infects plants that live near hot springs. The fungal virus confers enhanced heat resistance on the plant!

Conclusion: a ménage à trois with a positive outcome.

---

Simon Wain-Hobson is an emeritus professor at the Institute Pasteur, Paris, from which he retired in 2021. He and his colleagues were the first to sequence the genome of HIV, and Wain-Hobson has published more than 230 papers on virology and cancer.