Lab Accident More Likely Than Natural Zoonosis, Says Scientist

The debate surrounding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified recently, particularly following reports indicating that various intelligence agencies, including Germany's BND and a special committee in the U.S. Congress, believe in the plausibility of a laboratory accident rather than a natural zoonotic spillover.

Alina Chan, a Canadian molecular biologist who previously worked at the Broad Institute in Boston, has been one of the early proponents of the lab accident hypothesis. She, alongside science journalist Matt Ridley, authored a book discussing the origins of the pandemic. In a recent interview, Chan explained her reasoning for believing that the coronavirus likely escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China.

Chan noted that initial concerns were raised by Chinese scientists who pointed out the existence of a laboratory in Wuhan specializing in coronaviruses. By January 2020, many virologists in the West were alarmed by the possibility of the new coronavirus having leaked from this facility.

One of the key factors that prompted Chan's suspicion was the observation that SARS-CoV-2 was transmitted between humans as early as December 2019. This led her to question whether the virus had been circulating unnoticed among animals or humans for months, or if it had been modified in a laboratory environment.

Chan explored historical research that highlighted how scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) collected thousands of samples from bats in caves in Yunnan and Laos, analyzing them in their laboratory. Notably, some of these samples displayed genetic similarities to the virus responsible for the pandemic.

Her concerns grew when it became clear that many experiments involving these bat viruses were conducted in laboratories with a lower safety level than the highest standards required for such research. This raised the likelihood of an accidental release being a potential trigger for the pandemic.

Further investigation revealed a research proposal from the WIV dating back to 2018, which aimed to introduce a specific feature into SARS-like viruses to enhance their ability to infect human cells. Although this proposal was never approved, it raised concerns about whether the research had continued using alternative funding sources.

Chan emphasized that given the emergence of a new coronavirus with characteristics akin to those discussed in the 2018 proposal, cautious investigators should consider the lab accident scenario as more plausible than a natural zoonotic origin.

While acknowledging that genetic analysis could typically reveal engineered modifications, Chan pointed out that specific methods developed by researchers could obscure such alterations.

Chan summarized the situation by stating that while there is certainty that WIV researchers collected bat samples, the extent of their laboratory work with these samples remains largely unknown. This uncertainty is compounded by the lack of transparency from the WIV, including the deletion of a virus database in September 2019 and their failure to disclose similarities between their samples and SARS-CoV-2.

She addressed the initial outbreak of COVID-19, noting that the first cases were concentrated around the Huanan market in Wuhan, which has led to speculation about a zoonotic spillover. However, Chan argued that several factors complicate this narrative, including the testing protocols that focused on individuals linked to the market and the destruction of early samples by the Chinese government.

Moreover, reports from U.S. intelligence suggested that three laboratory workers in Wuhan fell ill with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in the fall of 2019, although verification of their cases remains elusive.

Chan expressed skepticism toward the credibility of the information provided by Chinese authorities and stressed the need for a whistleblower to uncover the truth regarding the origins of the virus.

Despite many virologists still favoring the zoonotic hypothesis, Chan contended that the investigation into the virus's origins must incorporate not only scientific data but also intelligence assessments and eyewitness accounts. She noted that intelligence agencies, such as the FBI and CIA, view a lab accident as more likely than a natural origin, with the BND assessing the lab hypothesis as having an 80 to 95 percent probability.

Chan criticized the bias against laboratory accident theories within the scientific community, stating that research supporting this perspective faces challenges in publication due to stigmatization.

As the discourse on the pandemic's origins continues, Chan stressed the urgency of taking preventive measures against potential future outbreaks, advocating for better oversight and regulation of high-risk viral research.

She affirmed her commitment to enhancing biosafety, aiming to improve transparency regarding dangerous research and to collaborate on establishing new regulations for handling potentially hazardous viruses.