San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
The lab leak ‘theory’ isn’t one
Based on the recent ravings of such virological giants as Jon Stewart and Donald Trump, a casual observer might think critical evidence had emerged to support the notion that the novel coronavirus escaped from a Chinese lab — or to refute the suspicion that it entered the human population the way of countless predecessors, by naturally spilling over from bats or other species. But the recent resurgence of the socalled lab leak theory among journalists, politicians and scientists largely outside the relevant fields means less than it seems to.
What has dawned is a collective realization that the possibility of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s involvement hasn’t been thoroughly disproved nor the probability of a spillover conclusively proved. That doesn’t mean the laboratory is a more or even similarly likely source. All the reliable evidence still points to the same speciesjumping that caused the previous two coronavirus pandemics. Yes, a lab origin remains a possibility, but it’s a comparatively remote one unsupported by scientific data.
That clearly isn’t the impression left by the latest discourse, however. Recent polls show that up to 60% of Americans believe the virus that causes COVID19 emerged from the lab in central China.
Baseless accusations of Chinese culpability for the virus have already fueled xenophobia and violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the Bay Area and across the country. The more mainstream but equally reckless recent exaggeration of the likelihood of a lab leak portends more grim consequences for too many.
The political motives and machinations that powered much of the dark speculation about the virus’ origins early on continue to play an important role. In its waning days, the Trump administration propagated unsubstantiated intimations that researchers at the Wuhan lab were hospitalized with a suspicious illness in November 2019, and exofficials up to and including the former president continue to grasp at the chance to deflect blame for their gross mishandling of the pandemic.
The lab leak “theory,” which is not a theory at all by any scientific definition, rests on a host of such unfounded and circumstantial claims. Purported genetic evidence of human manipulation keeps emerging and then withering under examination. The mere location of a lab studying coronaviruses in the city where the outbreak occurred is often cited as well. But the region is home to the lab because of its propensity to propagate pathogens such as the first SARS coronavirus less than two decades ago.
That the natural provenance of the virus hasn’t been conclusively demonstrated is also frequently and spuriously presented as evidence of lab origins. While it’s true that the source of SARSCoV2 hasn’t been found — though related bat viruses have — that’s not remarkable given the vast diversity of coronaviruses, limited animal sampling and the novelty of the pathogen. It took 14 years to trace SARSCoV1 to a bat cave in Yunnan province, and the precise origins of such familiar and deadly viruses as HIV and Ebola have yet to be identified.
In contrast to the speculation about the lab, and contrary to the suggestion of a letter to the journal Science that touched off much of the secondguessing, there is scientific evidence to support a natural origin. Tulane University virologist Robert Garry has noted, for example, that different lineages of the virus were linked to different Wuhan wildlife markets early in the pandemic, a fact more compatible with natural circulation among species.
While lab leak fever may distract from more likely hypotheses, understanding the origin of the pandemic is important enough to warrant a thorough investigation of that and other questions. The failure to communicate that it’s no more than a question, however, is not just regrettable but dangerous.