Where COVID-19 came from is still a hot topic. This controversy continues even five years after the World Health Organization declared the pandemic over. While researchers continue to debate two warring explanations—natural origins or the lab-leak conspiracy—scientists who have taken sides are coming under fire for their advocacy and alleged partisanship. It’s a dangerous experiment, and biosafety experts like Filippa Lentzos from King’s College London have raised the alarm. She finds it impossible to engage on quashing lab-leak conspiracy theories without being treated as political operatives.
Christian Frei’s documentary, “Blame: Bats, Politics and a Planet Out of Balance,” delves into the complexities surrounding the debate over the virus‘s origins. Frei highlights the continuing struggles scientists face now in communicating their work to the public. These emerging conflicts are fueled by the absence of real data and transparency from China. This environment has created a chilling effect on experts hiding their judgments.
Lentzos is not alone in expressing that her area of expertise has been dismissed out of hand due to fear of being linked with right-wing agendas. She added that there’s a stigma around talking about lab-leak scenarios. This is indicative of a cavalcade of scientists who are feeling the shackles of a crude political narrative.
The debate over the origins of COVID-19 just got a lot more complicated. Peter Daszak, former president of EcoHealth Alliance, is a prominent figure in this discussion. Daszak has repeatedly and resolutely denied having anything to do with gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. Others think that virus could have started there. His work has contributed to a growing crisis of trust within the scientific community, as public confidence wanes amid accusations of misinformation.
Shi Zhengli, a leading scientist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, previously acknowledged that her lab had produced at least one genetically modified virus more virulent than its parental strain. This admission has sparked a firestorm of speculation as to what laboratory research may pose a uniquely higher risk. The fuss over this subject is rekindling the fears that were stoked in 2011. In that same year, two research teams announced they had developed more transmissible strains of H5N1, prompting a public uproar.
The argument over COVID-19’s origins has been plagued by a lack of raw data to work with. Many scientists have pointed to China’s lack of transparency and political will to conduct thorough investigations as significant barriers to understanding the virus’s emergence.
At least one social scientist, Arizona State University’s Benjamin Hurlbut, makes a much more convincing case. He maintains the deeper problem isn’t an anti-science public, it’s what the scientific establishment calls people who are skeptical. He argues that brushing all of these people off as conspiracy theorists just makes the chasm wider.
Vincent Munster, a virus ecologist who played a pivotal role in organizing a statement published in The Lancet in early 2020, lamented that some colleagues support their theories “like a religion.” This statement condemned “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin” but failed to disclose Munster’s collaboration with the Wuhan Institute as a potential conflict of interest.
Proponents of lab-leak theories maintain that the virus may have emerged when researchers at the Wuhan lab became infected during research activities. This view is increasingly becoming the norm, even as ongoing debates shape the future and definition of scientific research. These conversations are delicate and have a deep impact on public trust.
A recent editorial published in Science emphasized that “scientists should better explain the scientific process and what makes it so trustworthy.” Accusations have been flying in academic circles. More troubling still is that some of these researchers are knowingly shilling for misinformation and conspiracy theories for political benefit.