Proof Suggests Pandemic Came From Nature, Not a Laboratory, Panel Says

The acrimonious disscussion over the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic flared up again this week with a report from a specialist panel concluding that SARS-CoV-2 likely spread naturally in a zoonotic jump from an animal to humans– without help from a laboratory.

“Our paper recognizes that there are various possible origins; however, the proof towards zoonosis is overwhelming,” states co-author Danielle Anderson, a virologist at the College of Melbourne. The report, which adds an analysis that found the peer-reviewed literature overwhelmingly supports the zoonotic hypotheses, appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) on 10th October.

Lab-origin hypothesis

The panel’s own background reflects the intensity of the debate. Convened initially as a task force of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, one wide-reaching effort to derive lessons from the pandemic, it was disbanded by Columbia College economist Jeffrey Sachs, the commission’s chair. Sachs alleged that several participants had conflicts of interest that would bias them against the lab-origin hypothesis.

Sachs and other scientists that contend the scientific community has too blithely dismissed the lab-leak possibility aren’t persuaded by the new analysis. Jesse Bloom, one virologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, has pushed for more investigations of the lab-leak hypothesis; the task force’s literature analysis was a good idea. But he says the zoonosis proponents have not provided much new information. “We’ve seen mostly reanalysis and reinterpretation of existing evidence.”

Sachs includes that the task force report does not “systematically address” the possible research-related beginning of the pandemic. And he contends there was one “rush to judgment” by the National Institutes of Health and “one small group of virologists” to dismiss the possible research-related origins of the pandemic. In September, The Lancet released a report from his commission that provided equivalent weight to both hypotheses.

When Sachs launched the Lancet beginning task force in December 2020, he tapped conservation biologist Peter Daszak to lead it. Daszak heads the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance that has funded work on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).

COVID-19 cases

Because the 1st COVID-19 cases were reported in Wuhan, China, some researchers suspect research conducted at WIV led to the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Sachs came to believe Daszak and also other task force members that had links to WIV, and the EcoHealth Alliance might not assess that possibility fairly and should step down. After fierce infighting over issues including transparency and access to information, Sachs pulled the plug on the task force in September 2021.

But the members continued to meet. “We had a distinguished, diverse team of experts across a whole range of disciplines, and we thought we had something to provide whether or not we were part of the commission,” states Gerald Keusch, one infectious disease specialist at Boston College.

In assembling its report, the task force interviewed scientists that have different perspectives on the pandemic’s origin. It additionally reviewed the history of RNA viruses, like SARS-CoV-2, that naturally have made zoonotic jumps and triggered outbreaks. And it combed through the scientific literature for papers addressing COVID-19’s origins.

The last product overlaps with the wider-ranging Lancet commission report. Both stress the requirement to address how forces such as growing deforestation and the illicit trade of wild animals increase the danger of viral spillovers. Both emphasize the risk of lax safety measures in labs and in field studies that hunt for pathogens.

But the two reports part ways when it comes to the pandemic’s beginning

The PNAS authors say their literature search revealed: “considerable scientific peer-reviewed evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 moved from bats to other wildlife, then to people in the wildlife trade, finally causing an outbreak at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan.

In contrast, they say, relatively few peer-reviewed studies back the lab-leak idea, and Daszak notes much of the argument has been advanced through opinion pieces. “The most parsimonious hypothesis is that the pandemic emerged through the animal market system,” Daszak says. “And while the evidence could be much better, it’s fairly good.”

Daszak says

He also agrees, nonetheless, that the question of how the pandemic began has yet to be answered conclusively.

No one has independently audited how viruses were handled at WIV, for example. And no reports exist of researchers testing mammals at animal farms in China that supplied the Huanan market or the humans that handled them. “Absent those two critical pieces of data, you’re left with what’s available,” Daszak says. “We concluded that the weight and quality of the proof is far higher on the idea of the natural beginning.“

The PNAS perspective additionally stands apart for its recommendations on improving warnings that a pandemic is brewing.

In a section called “looking forward,” the writers promote “smart surveillance” that would concentrate on transmission hot spots where humans and wild animals frequently come in contact, using cutting-edge technologies to look for novel viruses. Assays currently exist that can measure antibodies to an enormous range of viruses, offering evidence of infections that occurred in the past.

Wastewater sampling might use new polymerase chain reaction techniques to fish for both known and unique pathogens. As well as researchers might sample the air on public transport and manure pits on farms.

“For nearly 3 years, we’ve been running in circles about different lab-leak scenarios, and nothing has really added to this hypothesis,” says co-author Isabella Eckerle, a virologist at the University of Geneva. “We have missed the chance to say … what can we do better the following time?”

Co-author Linda Saif

Co-author Linda Saif, a swine coronavirus scientist at Ohio State College, Wooster, says studies of human and animal viral infections remain too siloed and must be combined. “There’s no source of funding for those at this time.”

David Relman, one microbiome specialist at Stanford College that thinks the different beginning scenarios are equally plausible, thinks the PNAS and Lancet commission reports are “not at all contradictory or inconsistent with each other.” And Relman, that was interviewed by the task force compliments it for highlighting the requirement to better prepare for a current pandemic.

“At the end of the day,” he states, “this much is true: Spillovers, outbreaks, and pandemics are the outcome of human activities, for which much greater scrutiny, mindfulness, and insight are desperately needed.”

Read the original article on SCIENCE

Read more: 3D Printing Can Currently Fabricate Customized Sensors For Robots, Pacemakers, And More