Corona viruses were first reported in 1965 in connection with research on viruses causing common cold. Later David Tyrrell pioneer in this field based on the then available data made a statement: "Corona viruses cause acute, mild upper respiratory infection (common cold)"(1,2). Ten plus years later the SARS outbreak in 2003 with a case fatality ratio of 11% and MERS, in 2017 with a case fatality ratio of 35% forced scientists to reevaluate the coronaviridae family of viruses(3,4,). Because the causative agents, the pathogens though hitherto unknown to humankind, were traced to the corona family. This was also like a wake up call, to be alert and prepared because there are lethal viruses lurking everywhere. A benign virus might have an hitherto unknown close cousin who might be pure evil. Consequently World Health Organisation's priority list of diseases that "pose the greatest public health risk due to their epidemic potential and/or whether there is no or insufficient countermeasures," included an X factor (5).
The WHO document further stated that "Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen currently unknown to cause human disease. The R&D Blueprint explicitly seeks to enable early cross-cutting R&D preparedness that is also relevant for an unknown “Disease X” (5). (also see When Enemy is Unknown, this column Feb.2020).
So how do we enable early cross-cutting R&D preparedness to combat an unknown enemy? That is where the tools of genetic engineering came in handy to the scientific community. Among other things investigations began on how a rather mild pathogen might mutate to a dangerous avatar and how a pathogen hitherto known only in birds and animals might cross over to humans (6). Under the innocuous label of " Gain of Function Research", scientists began tinkering with the genes of the existing viruses to make them more lethal and/or contagious. Because this knowledge is essential to design effective countermeasures such as vaccines. Naturally, GOF ( short for gain of function) research triggered heated debates in scientific circles on the risks and benefits involved. Fear of possible laboratory leaks prompted many to shun and vehemently object to GOF research. True, experiments are conducted in highly sophisticated labs adhering to stringent levels of biosafety. But still...
Marc Lipsitch, professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health argued: “Is this work so valuable for public health that it outshines the risk to public health in doing it?"(5) The debate reached high pitch and high heat when scientists mutated the naturally occurring H1N1 bird flu virus enabling it to be airborne and more infectious. There were other such scary instances too. Of course all these experiments were confined in petridishes within four walls of labs with very high biosafety level. Arturo Casadevall, microbiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, reassured everyone: “There is really no evidence that these experiments are in fact such high risk,” he said. “A lot of them are being done by very respectable labs, with lots of precautions in place.” Nevertheless the Obama government clamped morartorium on GOF research in 2014 (6). But it now appears that the research continued unhindered elsewhere. The moratorium was lifted in 2017 and NIH, USA stated that this line of research helps us to "identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health" (7)
There are groups who insist that SARS-CoV-2, the deadly virus responsible for COVID-19 pandemic is a product of the GOF research, which somehow leaked out. The suspicion that the SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural pathogen but an engineered one , is due to the detection of an unusual signature in its genetic makeup( 8). A natural predecessor from whom SARS-CoV-2 could have inherited this feature has not yet been identified either. Then came the revelation of the American links to the ongoing GOF research projects at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic (9). This time, along with the dissenting scientists, public too protested and demanded explanations. The pitch rose so high that National Institute of Health, USA deemed it necessary to put out the following statement: "neither the agency nor its National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has “ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans."
Between 2014-2019, Wuhan Institute of Virology has received huge research funds from National Institutes of Health, USA. Currently this is being investigated. For the time being NIH is tightlipped about the details, citing pending investigations (9). Meanwhile speculations are flourishing. But science is not built on speculations, we need concrete proofs.
TAILPIECE:
In brief: The Road to hell is always paved with good intentions.
REFERENCES:
1. Cold Wars: The Fight against the Common Cold: David Tyrrell and Michael Fielder,Oxford University Press 2002
2. Covid-19: First coronavirus was described in the BMJ in 1965
3. Consensus document on the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
4. MERS situation Update May 2021
5. Why Scientists Tweak Lab Viruses to Make Them More Contagious
6. US suspends risky disease research .
7. NIH Lifts Funding Pause on Gain of Function Research
8. Natural and unnatural history of the coronavirus: The uncertain path to the pandemic
9. Inside the risky bat-virus engineering that links America to Wuhan.
