The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) and its bias concerning the origin of SARS-Co-V-2

On October 17, 2023 I submitted an adapted version of the letter below to the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) concerning the origin of SARS-Co-V-2. Notes in [square brackets] have been added, for those not familiar with the ABC, and Australia more broadly. Most of the links have also been added. Parts of the text have been slightly expanded.

Dear Sir/Ms

I listened and read, with dismay, to the talk and transcript by journalist Ella Finkel [a science journalist who is the partner of Alan Finkel, a former Australian chief scientist whose original scientific training was electrical engineering], concerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2. This was first broadcast on October 14, 2023.

In summary, The Science Show [Australia's most prestigious and durable radio programme for science] has presented a biased version of events, worsened by the editorialising of Robyn Williams [the show's host since 1975] that "her sources are impeccable. .. Norman Swan [the presenter of a companion ABC programme called The Health Report] has read her summing-up and says it's spot on."

It is far too soon to conclude the origin of COVID-19

There are numerous remarks made by Ms Finkel which suggest the debate is far more settled than it actually is. My specific criticism of some of her comments are detailed in the two twitter threads (one of 11, the other of 4 parts). There are numerous points that I have discussed in these threads; there are several more which (at least for now) I have not yet responded to there. I cannot – and do not seek – to do justice to them here, in 1500 words or less [the limit for formal complaints to the ABC].

Two of my own peer reviewed publications are also relevant, as well as an unusually long (c1240 word, 32 refs) letter published in the Lancet in 2021, which I was substantially responsible for (these listed after my signature, below, together with three other recent, relevant publications): 

 

The ABC should stop trying to undermine scientific debate

 

Robyn Williams introduced Ella Finkel by reminding the audience of a plea by Professor Jagadish [a physicist], the current president of the Australian Academy of Science, to "stop undermining our scientists".

 

My plea to journalists is "stop trying to undermine scientific debate".

 

Comparing the SARS-Co-V-2 debate with that re the origin and prevention of puerperal fever  

 

An analogy for the current dispute concerning the origin of SARS-Co-V-2 is to consider an imaginary journalistic report on the debate concerning the transmission of puerperal (post-partum or “childbed”) fever, written in about 1855, while the dispute still raged. (This burned for about 25 years in the mid-19th century, though its origins are much earlier.) 

 

In this imaginary comparison the journalist, well connected to the scientific establishment [as is Ella Finkel] primarily relies for sources on "the old guard" - those obstetricians - always prestigious - who found numerous reasons to reject (and sometimes belittle) the revolutionary - and unsettling - claims by both Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes, and - later, in Europe - Dr Ignaz Semmelweis and his small number of supporters (see below ** for an example). In that case the “impeccable” sources were, for many years, wrong. This example is widely known, not only to medical historians but even to some modern medical students; I’m sure Robyn William and Norman Swan have each long been aware of this. The vanity and bias of the “authorities”, in the case of puerperal fever, delayed the adoption of measures that would have saved the premature deaths of many thousands of women, and the grief of bereaved partners and children.

 

The insights of Semmelweis and others (i.e. that rigorous hygiene after obstetricians leave the autopsy room before helping to deliver a baby would reduce the risk of the post-partum fever, often fatal in a pre-antibiotic era) are now taken for granted. It may be difficult for us to comprehend that these insights were scoffed at, perhaps for two decades, by most "experts", and regarded with impatience, scepticism, hostility and incredulity.

 

The reticence and provincial background of Semmelweis (whose native tongue was a German dialect) added to the hostility he and his findings encountered. (In the US, Oliver Wendell Holmes - later famous primarily for his literary powers - advanced a similar theory, preceding Semmelweis - though with less evidence. He was also attacked, but perhaps with less vehemence.) There are some parallels here with the lab leak theory for COVID-19, in that some of its leading proponents have – currently - less distinguished scientific “pedigrees” compared to Prof. Eddie Holmes, whom we are told (by Ella Finkel) is the recipient of “the Croonian medal, the same one Howard Florey won for developing penicillin”. (Even so, Semmelweis achieved great scientific fame after his premature death, aged 47.)

 

Several eminent scientists still think a laboratory leak is plausible

 

Nonetheless, a growing number of scientists, some of them distinguished, do treat the laboratory origin seriously. Among them are several Australians, including Emeritus Prof. Adrian Gibbs (https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/12911), Prof. Peter Collignon AM (https://medicalschool.anu.edu.au/people/academic-honorary/professor-peter-collignon-am) and Prof Raina MacIntyre (https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/professor-raina-macintyre).

 

Prof Wendy Hoy AO (https://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/1145) has called for further clarity and investigation concerning many aspects related to COVID19, including the origin.

 

I can’t speak for these others but for myself I emphatically state that I regard the origin of SARS-Co-V-2 as uncertain. The opacity of the publicly available Chinese data, and their lack of co-operation, bedevil a firm conclusion (either way). Most of the evidence advanced by Ella Finkel is tenuous – and, contrary to her assertion that “the case for a natural origin grows stronger” I would say that it grows weaker. She also asserts that this is “because it relies on the convergence of different lines of scientific evidence, most of it published in top journals like Science and Nature.”

 

There is no doubt that “top” journals including Science, Nature and The Lancet have published articles (and, in the case of Science, at least one editorial, as well as at least one “puff piece” about one of the key actors in the debate) in support of the natural origin hypothesis; nevertheless there is a growing number of high quality papers in lesser ranked journals; eg "Association between SARS-CoV-2 and metagenomic content of samples from the Huanan Seafood Market" that provide a counter view.

 

One of the key “lines of evidence” that Ella Finkel refers to is a paper by Jonathan Pekar et al. On October 13, 2023 (in the US) – i.e. one day before the Science Show programme went to air - an erratum was published for this paper. The paper has not yet been retracted, but this is a possibility, according to the person who appears to have first identified the error (see https://twitter.com/nizzaneela/status/1686105717135097862).

 

"Smearing" the character of scientists

 

I return to my key point: there is a debate, it is ongoing. The debate is of vital importance. Ella Finkel claims that the lab-leak case relies in part on “smearing the character of scientists”. I agree smearing has occurred – and this may play a role in the now dominant public perception (at least in the US) that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin – however she, Robyn Williams, Norman Swan (and the ABC more broadly) must surely accept that issues such as truthfulness, conflicts of interest and their declaration (or their disguise) are of vital importance. The exploration of these issues need not be “smearing”. Ella Finkel did not make this distinction.

 

The fact that many of the leading proponents of the “natural spillover” hypothesis have been less than forthcoming is undeniable. “Smearing” is two way – for example scientists genuinely concerned with the evidence (including myself) have been repeatedly characterised as “conspiracists”. I have been blocked, on twitter, by many of the leading scientists with views opposing mine, including several with whom I have never directly interacted. This speaks of a curious unwillingness – by one side - to engage in respectful scientific debate.

 

The possibility of future lab-associated pandemics is not trivial

 

There is a possibility, far from trivial, that genetic engineering technology has already, or could soon, lead to novel outbreaks of disease, even to pandemics. COVID-19 may, or may not, be the first such example. This hypothesis is an emerging insight, which, if valid, is at least of equal importance to hand-washing. Its importance can scarcely be over-stated.

 

I have speculated that the ABC’s reluctance to fairly explore the possibility of a laboratory origin for SARS-CoV-2 may be related to a perception that to do so could be perceived as risking re-inflaming Australia’s relations with the Peoples’ Republic of China. [China initiated numerous, extremely punitive trade sanctions, in part triggered by calls by a former Australian prime minister for suggesting the recruitment of independent investigators akin to “weapons inspectors” to determine the source of major disease outbreaks.]

 

However, even if that is the case, there are ways to explore this that are safer, perhaps emphasising the undoubted role that the US has played in funding research into “synthetic” pathogens, including in China. Is the ABC reluctant to offend the US? 

 

More important than either consideration is the health of the global public. The ABC has a duty of care which should lead it to not fully censor this discussion. The partisanship currently displayed by the ABC regarding this issue may in fact add to the undermining of science. 

 

Conclusion

 

Soon after the broadcast of an interview between Dr Norman Swan and Prof. Peter Doherty (concerning the origin) [Prof Doherty, whose original training was as a veterinarian, was recognised for his immunological research with the Nobel Prize in medicine; he has great scientific prestige in Australia] I wrote to the Health Report to complain of the bias of Norman Swan. I have twice (perhaps thrice) asked for Dr Swan to interview someone (eg Prof Richard Ebright) to balance the views of Prof Peter Doherty (who has undeclared conflicts of interest concerning this issue) [including the "Sino-Australia COVID-19 Partnership Program"]. No one from the Health Report has ever responded; this lack of response is the major reason for this formal complaint. The Science Show also should at least allow someone, with a more balanced view, to be interviewed concerning this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Colin

 

Colin D Butler PhD, MSc, BMed, BMed(Sci)(Hons), DTM&H 

Honorary Professor, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia

Specialty Chief Editor for Planetary Health in Frontiers in Public Health

https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/butler-cdd

 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2942-5294

 

**

My own publications of relevance:

 

van Helden, Butler et al. (2021) "An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2" Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext

 

United Nations Environment Programme (2022) "COVID-19: A Warning - Addressing Environmental Threats and the Risk of Future Pandemics in Asia and the Pacific" (I am sole author of this 70 page report, with 220 references, which was reviewed by 28 people)

 

Butler (2022) "Comparing and contrasting two United Nations Environment Programmereports on COVID-19" Science in One Health (2022) 

 

Butler (2022) “Gain of function' research can create experimental pathogens, but the risks mean it should be very carefully regulated, if not banned” The Conversation.

 

Butler and Randolph (2023) “There has been a suppression of the truth, secrecy and cover-ups on an Orwellian scale” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11687597/There-suppression-truth-secrecy-cover-ups-origin-Covid-19-China.html

 

Butler and Lambrinidou (2023) “COVID-19 and the existential threat of scientific hubris” https://biosafetynow.org/covid-19-and-the-existential-threat-of-scientific-hubris/

 

************ 

** One example: the leading Philadelphia obstetrician, Charles D. Meigs, derided Holmes' arguments as the “jejeune and fizzenless dreamings” of a sophomoric writer, and declared that any practitioner who met with epidemic cases of puerperal fever was simply “unlucky.”

 

************ 

 

This is the ABC response, so far:

Thank you for contacting the ABC. The ABC values audience feedback whether supportive or critical and all complaints are reviewed by ABC Audience Support. Your reference number is C22871-23. Please do not respond to this automated email.

 

The ABC receives many thousands of written complaints a year and we need to ensure a common-sense approach when responding. In summary, we will take action when warranted, engage where there is value in doing so, and note criticism of our performance when there is nothing more of substance we can offer. In some cases, including where your complaint relates to a matter of personal taste or preference, you may receive no more than this automated acknowledgement that your complaint has been received.  

 

Complaints about specific ABC content which concern our editorial standards will be noted and may be referred to the content area concerned or retained by the ABC Ombudsman’s Office for further consideration. 

 

Where a further response is provided, the ABC aims to respond to you within the next 30 days. However, please be aware that due to the large volume of correspondence we receive and the complex nature of some matters, responses may take longer than this.

 

The ABC’s complaints process is further outlined on our website.

 

If you would like to contact us again about this complaint, please use the form on our website.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us, and for your interest in the ABC.

ABC Audience Support

**

 

On Nov 23, 2023 I received a confidential email from an ABC employee, in response to my complaint. It stated in part, words to the effect that my complaint was reviewed, but rejected.

The tone was reasonably friendly, and it’s better than nothing. The BBC recently published a “puff piece” on Anthony Fauci – I see that as nothing less than UK govt. propaganda. See https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20231130-anthony-fauci-interview-influential-katty-kay

 

Cleaning up a dirty business: the successful campaign (2005-2007) to force the publisher of the Lancet to divest itself from the arms trade

This essay was originally published on the Drs for Environment Australia (DEA) website. See also https://dea.org.au/the-successful-campaign-2005-2007-to-force-the-publisher-of-the-lancet-to-divest-itself-from-the-a-healthy-planet-healthy-people-dea/

Introduction by David Shearman (DEA founder)

"This article should be read in conjunction with the letter posted above. (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1939945/). It is an inspiring story of decisions forced upon the recalcitrants by the activism of NGOs and professional organisations. DEA is proud that its Committee members have been involved"

Reed Elsevier and its role in promoting sales of arms and torture equipment

The Lancet was founded in 1823 by the physician, surgeon and activist Thomas Wakley. Wakley envisaged his journal as a vehicle to campaign for social justice and human rights, such as to support the Tolpuddle Martyrs - six agricultural labourers who were sentenced to seven years' transportation for campaigning against a wage cut.1 On the whole, the Lancet has honoured this tradition, including through its pioneering recognition in 1989 that climate change is a health issue.2 Furthermore, the Lancet’s position as a consistent publisher of groundbreaking clinical material has exposed many conservative medical readers to its more subversive material.

In 1991, the Lancet was acquired by the Dutch publisher Elsevier (founded in 1880). Two years after this acquisition, Elsevier merged with the conglomerate Reed International, a pulp and paper manufacturer which had expanded into publishing and other lines. Some time after this – but no later than 2003 - Reed Elsevier got involved with the arms trade, through its subsidiary Spearhead Exhibitions, which hosted one of the largest military exhibitions in the world, called the Defence Systems and Equipment international.3

Reed Elsevier boasted of this 2003 exhibition as a “key event for the total supply chain” of arms.3 Weapons on show included cluster bombs, widely deplored by UN agencies and human rights organisations. By 2006, arms fairs hosted by Reed Exhibitions (note the name change) were run in the United States, the Middle East, Brazil, Germany and Taiwan as well as the UK. The 2006 fair held in the US included the display of torture equipment sold by Security Equipment Corporation, a company whose slogan is ‘Making grown men cry since 1975’.4 Other exhibitors at some of these fairs included manufacturers of electroshock batons, stun guns, and stun belts, items banned by the European Union because their use amounts to torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.5

Until late 2005, the editors of the Lancet appear to have been unaware of the unsavoury practices of its owner. They were alerted through a letter which they published in September of that year, signed by representatives from six lobby groups – the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Europeans for Medical Progress, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), MedAct [the UK affiliate of International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)], Physicians for Social Responsibility and Scientists for Global Responsibility.6 Accompanying this letter, the Lancet published a strongly critical editorial, imploring its owners to abandon. Unusually, this article was signed by The Lancet and The Lancet’s International Advisory Board.3

Commenting on the cluster bombs that Reed Elsevier was helping to promote, the Lancet wrote:

“Cluster bombs have high failure rates, creating de-facto minefields. Their effects do not discriminate between military targets and civilian populations. They are the worst kind of weapon. The UN Mine Action Strategy specifically includes unexploded cluster bombs in its vision of a mine-free world. UNICEF reported that over 1000 children were injured by unexploded ordnance, including cluster bombs, after the Iraq war in 2003. Human Rights Watch has called for a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs until their civilian effects have been resolved. The Lancet has consistently opposed the use of cluster bombs. It will be incomprehensible to the journal’s readers that our owners are engaged in a business that so clearly undermines not only principles of public-health practice, but also the policies of intergovernmental agencies”.3

In response, Reed Elsevier directors and publicists simply argued that the arms business was legal. Reed Elsevier also claimed to be committed to the “highest ethical standards in all (its) business activities”.7 Graham pointed out the similarities of these with arguments used in 1806 to support the legitimacy, morality and job-creating virtues of slavery.8

However, the main criticism of Reed Elsevier was never that the arms trade is illegal. The real argument was that Reed Elsevier’s involvement with the arms trade compromised the independence and standing of its publishing business. For Reed Elsevier, the crucial question was: to what extent would its involvement in promoting arms (approximately 0.5% of its business) compromise the profitability and value of its suite of medical and scientific journals? (approximately 14% of its business).9

Initially, Reed Elsevier seems to have judged that the protest against its arms business would fade or at worst remain a minor irritant, which could be swatted aside like a mosquito. This decision proved very naïve. Reed Elsevier grossly underestimated the tenacity and conviction of its opposition, particularly among sectors of the health profession. Its responses simply fanned the flames of protest.

However, it has to be said, the distribution of this protest was extremely unequal. Reed Elsevier’s publishing stable includes numerous (probably thousands) of journals other than the Lancet. Its website (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/subject_area_browse.cws_home/) lists almost 400 sub-disciplines, and it publishes many journals in each of these. It also publishes Australian Doctor and New Scientist. To the credit of its editors, contributors and readers, the campaign against its parent company was fought mainly in The Lancet. I know only of one other Reed Elsevier journal (Political Geography) that was also publicly critical of its owner.10 The issue appears to have been totally ignored by the other Reed Elsevier journals. (Please advise me if you know of any exceptions, especially as to whether this issue was ever reported by Australian Doctor).

Reed Elsevier, ecology and sustainability

In 2005 Reed Elsevier advertised that it was to host an ‘ecosummit’ in 2007 (http://www.ecosummit2007.elsevier.com/). On being invited to submit an abstract for this meeting my response was to argue that any conference concerning sustainability hosted by an organisation involved with promoting arms would be tainted. I wrote to numerous VIPs among the ecological community, whose names were listed as endorsing this meeting, arguing the conference should be boycotted until Reed Elsevier divested themselves from arms promotion.

Readers will be unsurprised that at that time I received virtually no response, and certainly none that was sympathetic. In fact, apart from the editorial in Political Geography [and the involvement of MedAct, Drs for Environment Australia (DEA) and ISDE] the response by the environmental and ecological community response to this campaign has been muted.

For several years I have sensed that the academic ecological community has expressed little understanding or concern for social justice. These doubts grew during my four year long involvement with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.11 To further explore this impression, I analysed one of the two major on-line petitions opposed to Reed Elsevier’s involvement with the arms trade (http://cage.ugent.be/~npg/elsevier/), counting the academic discipline of the petitioners. Of 1915 signatures (this petition is now closed) 33% worked in health, but only 2% worked in ecology or earth sciences. Another 6% were geographers.1 Of course this survey does not prove my suspicion that ecologists are under-represented in such issues, but nor does it alleviate my concerns. I continue to worry that the links between violence, environmental change and sustainability are poorly understood by the ecological community.

2007: the campaign against Reed Elsevier grows

In 2007 the campaign against Reed Elsevier’s engagement with the arms trade continued to build. In early 2007 Reed Elsevier announced that it would stop exhibiting cluster bombs.12 Despite this, opposition continued to swell, embracing increasingly influential individual and groups. In 2007 the campaign spread beyond the Lancet to two other leading journals: the British Medical Journal (BMJ)13 and the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.4 By mid 2007, declared opponents included a former president of the Royal Society, 38 senior staff at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,14 the Royal College of Physicans15 and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, which sold all of its shares in Reed Elsevier, following three years of critical engagement on the company's role in the arms trade.14

The BMJ editorial provoked eleven e-letters (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/334/7593/547). Almost all of these e-letters opposed the practices of Reed Elsevier, although two argued that the BMJ’s stance was tainted by conflict of interest, in that criticising the Lancet could increase the BMJ’s market share. A couple of others argued defended the legitimacy of arms sales.

The two web-petitions eventually attracted 2024 signatories (a few people signed both petitions). An increasing number of articles appeared in the British press, including one in The Times co-authored by JM Coetzee, a Nobel Laureate in literature.16 One of the petitions was signed by Sir Michael Atiyah, a former President of the UK's Royal Society. Another signatory was Jack Steinberger, a Nobel Laureate in physics.

By the northern hemisphere summer of 2007, Reed Elsevier had had enough. Their decision to withdraw from the arms trade was widely reported in Britain, including in the Lancet 7 and the BMJ.18

The role of lobby groups – including DEA

Many health, peace and social justice lobby groups published letters in the Lancet which appealed for Reed Elsevier to divest itself from its arms businesses. In addition to the six mentioned above6 these organizations included Doctors for Human Rights,5 Doctors for Iraq,19 Medsin (a medical student organization)20 and the People’s Health Movement.21

Drs for the Environment Australia (DEA) members will also be pleased to know that DEA contributed in several ways to this campaign. On behalf of DEA, Bill Castleden wrote directly to Reed Elsevier (this letter received the standard response). DEA representatives also contributed to two letters co-authored by representatives of ISDE, the Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW), MedAct and IPPNW.22,23 One of these letters23 is re-posted on the DEA website, (above) with permission of the publisher, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. This letter calls for publishers to declare their conflicts of interest, whether real or reasonably perceived as genuine.

Thousands of individuals were eventually involved in the campaign against the policies of Reed Elsevier. The role of organizations in marshalling this support was vital. Reed Elsevier is a multi-billion dollar business. Corporations such as this can easily dismiss individual protests, but it is much more difficult to ignore the efforts of well-organised and persistent lobby groups and organisations. Individuals can easily burn out. The support which members of groups can provide to each other and to other groups is important to sustain morale and to attract new interest. As the campaign grew, the role of the lay press also became increasingly important.

Lessons for Australia

How would such a campaign have progressed in Australia? My sense is that it is unlikely to have progressed at anything like the same rate. To date, I am unaware of any significant coverage of this issue by the Australian press or academic journals, including the Medical Journal of Australia. In contrast, two recent editorials have been published in leading international journals critical of the muzzling and timidity of Australian expression24 including through the censoring way in which Australian science is funded.25

Australians were once renowned for their larrikinism and questioning spirit, while the British population was bound by conservatism and class structures. The Australian population is now more than one third that of the UK. Yet, my impression is that we now have nowhere near one third of the activists and dissenting intellectuals of that country, some of whom – such as Geoffrey Robertson and John Pilger – are Australian expatriates. The reasons for the recent Australian trend to self-censorship and timidity are complex, and beyond the main scope of this article. But I think they lie partly in the history of post-Aboriginal Australia, and partly in our post World War II alliance with the US. Cut off from motherland of Europe, those of us with European ancestry look to our near North with a curious mix of fear, contempt and fascination. This drives a cultural shift towards the US, where dissent is also difficult. Our dispersal within this vast continent may also hinder the development of clusters of intellectual dissent of sufficient critical mass.

I can’t speak for the increasing proportion of Australians of Asian origin, but I suspect their voice in calling for greater Australian activism for human and environmental rights (including in Asia, such as the current egregious oppression of the people of Burma) is also muted. Perhaps this is in part because they fear or sense an anti-Asian racism, which perhaps might be heightened if they were to challenge the dominant Australian ethos with regard to human rights. Whatever the reasons, I close this essay by appealing for Australians, of all origins, to be more courageous. We need to speak out against the arms trade, the corruption of publishers, and the failure to tackle climate change. We need to think that advancing the sustainability transition might entail at least as many opportunities as risks. Finally, we need to form broad coalitions, within and beyond health. Health needs to link not only with the environmental and peace lobbies but also with those concerned with development, human rights, and all other forms of social justice. The campaign against Reed Elsevier shows that, if we are united and persistent, a great deal can be accomplished.

References

1. Kandela P. Medical journals and human rights. The Lancet 1998;352(s2):7-12.
2. Anonymous. Health in the greenhouse [editorial]. Lancet 1989;i:819-820.
3. Editorial. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade. The Lancet 2005;366:868.
4. Smith R. Reed-Elsevier's hypocrisy in selling arms and health. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2007;100:1-2.
5. Hall P. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade revisited. The Lancet 2007;369:988.
6. Feder G, Rohde JE, Sebastian MS, et al. Reed Elsevier and the international arms trade [letter]. The Lancet 2005;366:889.
7. Cowden SJ. Reed Elsevier's reply [letter]. The Lancet 2005;366:889-890.
8. Graham J. Reed Elsevier [e-letter]. BMJ 2007;334 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/334/7593/547
9. Buckley C. Reed Elsevier to quit arms exhibitions after ethical campaign. The Times 2007.
10. Chatterton P, Featherstone D. Intervention: Elsevier, critical geography and the arms trade (editorial). Political Geography 2007;26(1):3-7.
11. Butler CD. Peering into the fog: ecologic change, human affairs and the future. EcoHealth 2005;2:17-21.
12. Pringle C. Response to Chatterton and Featherstone, ''Intervention: Elsevier, critical geography and the arms trade''. Political Geography 2007;26(1):8-9.
13. Young C, Godlee F. Reed Elsevier's arms trade. BMJ 2007;334:547.
14. Campbell O, Coleman M, Cousens S, et al. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade revisited. The Lancet 2007; 369.
15. Pelly M, Gilmore I. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade revisited. The Lancet 2007; 369:
16. Byatt AS, Coetzee JM, Carey J, et al. The London Book Fair, Democracy in action, Shoot first. The Times March 2 2006 http://www.caat.org.uk/press/archive.php?url=020306prs.
17. Editorial. Reed Elsevier and defence exhibitions: an announcement. The Lancet 2007;369:1902.
18. Siva N. Reed Elsevier to stop hosting arms exhibitions. BMJ 2007;334:1182.
19. Ismael S. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade revisited. The Lancet 2006;369:989.
20. Smith A, Jones J. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade revisited. The Lancet 2006;369:988-989.
21. Quizphe A, Benos A, Lloyd B, et al. Reed Elsevier and the arms trade revisited. The Lancet 2006;369:987.
22. Butler CD, Castleden B, Westberg G, Benatar S, Holdstock D. Reed Elsevier and the conflicts of interest of publishers [eletter]. BMJ 2007 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/334/7593/547.
23. Butler C, Castleden W, Ruff TA, Westberg NG, Corra L. A call for publishers to declare their conflicts of interest. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2007;100:355.
24. Anonymous. Australia: the politics of fear and neglect. The Lancet 2007;369:1320.
25. Lowe I. A critical vote down under. Science 2007;317:1649.

The origin of COVID-19, “gain of function” research and the Anthropocene (IJE version)

Letter to the Editor (maximum length 700 words, 10 references, 2 figures) rejected by the International Journal of Epidemiology on May 12, 2023 (no review, no reason provided other than "too much competition"). This version has been expanded, with some links added and two new figures.

Note: from sometime in 2010 until early 2013 I worked closely with Dr Peter Daszak, as one of four co-editors of the journal EcoHealth, eg see "Global ecology, global health, ecohealth" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-011-0735-5 "EcoHealth and the influenza A/H5N1 dual use issue" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-012-0768-4 and "Nature, Gaia, Plagues, and People: Three Books on a Path to EcoHealth" (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10393-012-0797-z)

Key Words: virology, ethics, risk, planetary health, climate change, gain of function

text

In 1975 Paul Berg, awarded the 1980 Nobel chemistry prize for his pioneering work recombining genetic material, warned, with colleagues, fresh from the Asilomar conference, of potential biohazards arising from the then novel technology which he and his colleagues were pioneering (1). Such recombinant genetic work is now sometimes called “gain of function” (GOF), because it can result in the acquisition of new phenotypic traits. However, GOF is imprecise, with potential risks and benefits. Sometimes, the dangerous pole of GOF is called “GOF of concern” or “dual use research of concern”. These names reflect awareness that the methods can be used for good or ill, including for bioweapons.

Around 2010 concern was growing that H5N1, a virus responsible for avian influenza, could develop the capacity to be transmitted between humans, and at the same time retain the high mortality known to be associated in diagnosed human cases. Researchers in the Netherlands and the US conducted experiments involving the use of “serial passage” involving ferrets to see if they could generate a form of H5N1 with enhanced mammalian transmission, potentially including among humans. This work generated intense controversy, leading to a brief moratorium on the manipulation of viruses considered to have pandemic potential (2).

In 2018 the Global Virome Project (GVP) was launched, with the ambitious goal of seeking to “discover the bulk of the projected remaining 1.67 million unknown viruses in animal reservoirs” and to characterize the majority of the 0.6 to 0.8 million considered to have “the highest zoonotic potential” (3). To assist this formidable task GVP supporters proposed to use “in vitro binding mechanisms coupled with in vivo models” (3). [Added after submission: see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdYDL_RK--w where Peter Daszak boasts to Vincent Racaniello about the EcoHealth Alliance's capacity, via its partners, to manipulate viral characteristics; strikingly, neither express any recognition of the risks.] It is now evident that some of these techniques involved the deliberate manipulation of the genetic structure of viruses, including coronaviruses, and the exploration of their biological effects using chimeric, hybrid mammals such as “humanized mice” (4).

To non-virologists the existence of synthetic viruses may seem like science fiction, perhaps as fantastic as the relevance to human health of changes in the concentration of trace “greenhouse” gases once did. However, this is not science fiction. In 2017 researchers synthesised horsepox virus, from component fragments of RNA available by mail order. The lead author of this work later warned “any method that can be used to assemble horsepox virus could be used to construct variola, the virus that causes smallpox” (5). Thus, any emergence of smallpox, today, could be synthetic rather than the accidental or deliberate release from a known stockpile.

The possibility of laboratory enhanced viruses arising via GOF was recognised by the GVP (see figure 1) (6). There is now abundant documentation of links between one of the leading promoters of the GVP (Peter Daszak) and GOF involving coronaviruses, commissioned to be undertaken at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). This route is via the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), which is led by Daszak. This organisation has received tens of millions of dollars from the US government, including the US Department of Defence (see below). Some of these funds have been used to fund work at the WIV which can arguably be defined as GOF, although the EHA later denied this (see figure 2). Though definitive evidence linking GOF with the emergence of SARS-Co-V-2 is still lacking, an increasingly number of scientists think that it is plausible (7).

 

 

Figure 1. Source: slide 4 https://www.slideshare.net/SirTemplar/2017-0907-global-virome-project. Note the words “gain of function” and “novel”. See also slide 2 (Figure 5, below), which makes a similar point, without using the term "gain of function".

Figure 2. The EHA has repeatedly denied that any of the work it commissioned at the WIV or elsewhere is GOF. However, this is based on arbitrary definitional interpretation. Before the work of the EHA became highly controversial their enthusiastic support for GOF was clear, as shown by this email from the EHA president, dated July 2016, made available to the public using freedom of information legislation. Source https://americasbestpics.com/picture/email-from-peter-daszak-to-jenny-greer-on-getting-gain-IE4Uc9f39

 

Figure 3.  (Added) The question must be asked: is the EHA, effectively, a branch of the US military? Sources https://twitter.com/RTheyLying/status/1655895977008431105 and https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/12d878d7-3cbe-c819-e51e-7891f98ae955-C/all

Figure 4.  (Added) As of today (May 14, 2023 in Australia) this website shows that that US Dept of Defence is, by far, the largest provider of funds to the EcoHealth Alliance. Source: https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/12d878d7-3cbe-c819-e51e-7891f98ae955-C/all

 

Figure 5 (added).  Source: slide 2 https://www.slideshare.net/SirTemplar/2017-0907-global-virome-project. According to the Global Virome Project in 2017, the accidental and/or intentional release of "laboratory-enhanced variants" is increasing. Yet, in 2020, Peter Daszak (closely involved with the GVP) covertly co-ordinated an influential letter, published in The Lancet, which attempted to dismiss concerns of a laboratory source of the pandemic as "conspiracy". (e.g. see van Helden, Butler et al: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext)

Irrespective of COVID-19’s cause, the entirely synthetic or human-modified viruses that GOF can produce can be conceptualised as “novel entities”, one of the “planetary boundaries”, a foundational concept for planetary health (8). It is 34 years since the world’s first editorial on climate change and health in a medical journal. At that time, the word “Anthropocene” (the human shaped era) had not been coined (9), and that concept probably would, in 1989, have seemed far-fetched to most epidemiologists. Yet, today, concepts such as planetary boundaries, the Anthropocene and climate change are broadly accepted as relevant to global population health (10).

The consequences of GOF could already be immense. In future, unchecked, they could rival the scale of climate change and even the intentional use of nuclear weapons. It is time for epidemiologists to again broaden their horizons, and consider the disturbing possibility that the Anthropocene has entered a dangerous new phase.

References

1. Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO, Singer M. Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on recombinant DNA molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA). 1975;72(6):1981-4.

2. Wain-Hobson S. H5N1 viral-engineering dangers will not go away. Nature. 2013;495:411.

3. Carroll D, Daszak P, Wolfe ND, et al. The Global Virome Project. Science. 2018;359:872–4.

4. Segreto R, Deigin Y. The genetic structure of SARS-CoV-2 does not rule out a laboratory origin. BioEssays. 2020;n/a(n/a):2000240.

5. Noyce RS, Evans DH. Synthetic horsepox viruses and the continuing debate about dual use research. PLOS Pathogens. 2018;14(10):e1007025.

6. Global Virome Project. The beginning of the end of the pandemic era https://www.slideshare.net/SirTemplar/2017-0907-global-virome-project (viewed 13 April, 2023). 2017.

7. Bahry D. Rational discourse on virology and pandemics. mBio. 2023. DOI: 10.1128/mbio.00313-23

8. Butler CD. Comparing and contrasting two United Nations Environment Programme reports on COVID-19. Science in One Health. 2022;1:100003

9. Crutzen PI, Stoermer EF. The "Anthropocene". IGBP Newsletter. 2000;41:12.

10. Whitmee S, Haines A, Beyrer C, et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet. 2015;386:1973–2028.