Did COVID-19 escape from a lab?

hazard suits
Credit: Wuhan Virology Institute
A frenzy of speculation has arisen around the idea that the novel coronavirus responsible for the global COVID-19 pandemic might originally have escaped from a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan.While there is so far no evidence being offered to support this suggestion, the fact that the mere possibility is being reported in mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post and Yahoo News might seem to give credence to earlier conspiracy theories about the virus being engineered in a biowarfare laboratory and deliberately released into the human population.But don’t be fooled. Whether the virus first infected humans at the infamous Wuhan “wet market” or somehow took a more complicated route via a so far unidentified Chinese laboratory, the ultimate source of the novel coronavirus is still the same: wild populations of bats.

The bat connection

None of the current speculation changes the one fact that is established beyond reasonable doubt — SARS-CoV-2 is a zoonotic virus, meaning it came from an animal and jumped into the human population.

It appears that the Wuhan Institute of Virology is currently under suspicion because its scientists were studying bat coronaviruses in order to evaluate the possibility of the emergence of just such a pandemic as is currently underway.

Indeed, it is thanks to their work that we know that SARS-CoV-2 is 96 percent “identical at the whole-genome level to a bat coronavirus” (to quote from a Feb. 3 Nature paper co-authored by the institute’s scientists) and that its most likely original host is the horseshoe bat.

bats cv x jpg

An investigation by the United States military into the origins of the virus, while noting the high degree of “speculation and rumor” around the issue,  concurred that “the weight of evidence seems to indicate ‘natural.’”

That the virus has natural origins is also apparent from its molecular structure. Scientists writing in Nature Medicine journal on March 17 made clear that “all notable SARS-CoV-2 features” were also observed “in related coronaviruses in nature” and that therefore “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

As Josie Golding, epidemics lead at the UK-based Wellcome Trust, pointed out: The findings “are crucially important to bring an evidence-based view to the rumors that have been circulating about the origins of the virus.”

In the Nature Medicine paper, the scientists reach the definitive conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 is “the product of natural evolution,” Golding added, “ending any speculation about deliberate genetic engineering.”

Letting Trump off the hook?

Would that it were so simple. All the news reports thus far rely on anonymous sources within the Trump Administration and the intelligence community — and the former have a strong interest in hyping Chinese responsibility in order to divert the spotlight from Trump’s own chaotic, slow and ill-informed response to the pandemic.

A New York Times investigation published on April 11 looked in particular at the role of Matthew Pottinger, a former Wall Street Journal correspondent who is a noted China hawk and now deputy national security adviser in the Trump Administration.

As the NYT reported, Pottinger and colleagues urged the CIA and other agencies to search for evidence that might “bolster his theory” that the “virus may have originated in one of the laboratories in Wuhan studying deadly pathogens” — even though “they didn’t have any evidence” to support such a contention.

Related article:  Why the US is 'not nearly as prepared as we need to be' to deal with China's coronavirus
Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

The Times report also reveals that “Mr. Pottinger and others — including aides to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — pressed for government statements to use the term ‘Wuhan Virus’” in order to help seal the impression of direct Chinese responsibility.

This “Wuhan Virus” insult infuriated Beijing, leading one Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson to spin his own retaliatory conspiracy theory about the origins of COVID-19 — that it was brought to China by the US military.

The spat has continued with Trump’s latest move to defund the World Health Organization, ostensibly because it has been too sympathetic to the Chinese leadership, but again, more likely in reality aimed to deflect attention from his own missteps.

The Wuhan ‘wet market’

Despite these competing geopolitical conspiracy theories, the most likely explanation about the origins of COVID-19 remains the original one: that the virus first spread into the human population of Wuhan from an animal at the city’s notorious “wet market.”

Indeed the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market had reportedly sold chickens, pheasants, bats, hedgehogs, marmots, tiger frogs and snakes, as well as organs from rabbits and other animals, at some point over the previous months.

wh wetfishmarkett

Wildlife markets in China, as elsewhere in Asia, are notorious for keeping endangered and wild animals in close-confined unsanitary conditions that provide an ideal breeding grounds for germs and an easy route for viruses circulating in wild animals to infect humans via urine, feces or blood as they are butchered.

While bats are consumed in China and may have been sold in the Wuhan wet market, it seems unlikely that SARS-CoV-2 jumped directly to people from wild bats. An “intermediate host” was probably involved in the virus’s evolution into a form more adapted to humans.

This was also the case for previous coronavirus epidemics: the earlier SARS and MERS epidemics, respectively, had civet cats and camels as intermediate hosts. Currently pangolin — a scaly mammal endangered in the wild but often sold in Chinese markets — is the leading contender.

This has led to calls from over a hundred conservation charities to close wildlife markets and stop bushmeat consumption throughout the world, and to do so permanently — both to protect animals from hunting, poaching and other exploitation and to reduce the potential for the next pandemic.

After all, it is not only coronaviruses that have zoonotic origins. Ebola is likely to have infected humans from gorillas butchered in the forests of central Africa, while HIV is thought to have crossed into humans from chimpanzees, again probably when they were slaughtered for meat.

Protecting endangered wildlife could therefore not only support biodiversity goals, but help humanity avoid the next global pandemic. With tens of thousands already dead and trillions of dollars wiped off the global economy thanks to COVID-19, the impacts of pandemics are surely too disastrous to allow conspiracy theories to derail a proper evidence-based global response.

Mark Lynas is an environmental/science writer. Follow him on Twitter @mark_lynas

This article originally ran at Cornell Alliance for Science and his been republished here with permission.

Outbreak
Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped
can you boost your immune system to prevent coronavirus spread x

Video: How to boost your immune system to guard against COVID and other illnesses

Scientists have recently developed ways to measure your immune age. Fortunately, it turns out your immune age can go down ...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...
globalmethanebudget globalcarbonproject cropped x

Infographic: Cows cause climate change? Agriculture scientist says ‘belching bovines’ get too much blame

A recent interview by Caroline Stocks, a UK journalist who writes about food, agriculture and the environment, of air quality ...
organic hillside sweet corn x

Organic v conventional using GMOs: Which is the more sustainable farming?

Many consumers spend more for organic food to avoid genetically modified products in part because they believe that “industrial agriculture” ...
benjamin franklin x

Are most GMO safety studies funded by industry?

The assertion that biotech companies do the research and the government just signs off on it is false ...
gmo corn field x

Do GMO Bt (insect-resistant) crops pose a threat to human health or the environment?

Bt is a bacterium found organically in the soil. It is extremely effective in repelling or killing target insects but ...
favicon

Environmental Working Group: EWG challenges safety of GMOs, food pesticide residues

Known by some as the "Environmental Worrying Group," EWG lobbies for tighter GMO legislation and famously puts out annual "dirty dozen" list of fruits and ...
m hansen

Michael Hansen: Architect of Consumers Union ongoing anti-GMO campaign

Michael K. Hansen (born 1956) is thought by critics to be the prime mover behind the ongoing campaign against agricultural biotechnology at Consumer Reports. He is an ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend