This is a minimally modified letter version of a letter sent to 99 of the 105 people listed as affiliated with the editorial board of the journal EcoHealth, for whom I could locate valid email addresses. It was originally sent on November 6, 2022. I am the sole author.
Hyperlinks not in original, text marked between asterisks added, e.g **text added **. An erroneous url address has been corrected.
So far (November 16, 2023) five of these 99 people have responded in a substantial way (on topic). One mixed, one very supportive, two supportive, one a bit hostile.
I will update this summary from time to time.
28 Sept 2023. I am aware two have resigned, in part because of their discomfort over this issue. Two more have left, I don't know the reasons as yet. No one new has joined. One co-authored an essay with me, published in the Daily Mail called "There has been a suppression of the truth, secrecy and cover-ups on an Orwellian scale"
COVER LETTER:
Dear Dr,
I am writing to you (see attached letter) because of your role in the journal EcoHealth, a journal I was associated with from its inception until my resignation, as a co-editor, in 2013. This letter appeals for EcoHealth to publish an editorial (or a guest editorial) which revisits the debate over “gain of function” research, to follow its earlier one, from 2012 (for which I was a co-author, as are several recipients of this email).
That biohazards can result from recombinant DNA technology was recognized in the 1970s, and the concept that such organisms can harm human health should be no more challenging today (in the Anthropocene) than the idea that greenhouse gases or biodiversity loss could influence human health was to pioneers in those fields, including my mentor, the late Prof Tony McMichael (a co-editor, with Pim Martens and Jonathan Patz, of one of the two main precursor journals of EcoHealth).
I appeal for you to read the attached letter (2 pages) with an open mind, and, if you are sympathetic, use your influence with Ecohealth and its parent association to explore and develop these ideas.
Kindest Regards
Colin
Colin Butler PhD, MSc, BMed, DTM&H
Honorary Professor, National Centre for Epidemiology and Population
Health, Australian National University, Australia
Member of Scientific Advisory Committee: Doctors for the Environment,
Australia
https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/butler-cdd
http://colindbutler.weebly.com/
http://www.bodhi-australia.com/
http://health-earth.weebly.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2942-5294
colin.butler@anu.edu.au
***
ATTACHED LETTER:
Dear Dr
I am writing to you because of your connection with the journal EcoHealth, a journal I was associated with from its inception until my resignation, in 2013 (at which time I was a co-editor).
EcoHealth is stated as a central platform for fulfilling the mission of the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA), which is to “strive for sustainable health of people, domestic animals, wildlife, and ecosystems by promoting discovery, understanding, and transdisciplinarity” (1).
This description of EHA’s mission omits the word ethics, but I believe it is implicit, especially in the words “strive for sustainable health”. Furthermore, ethics is relevant to all scientific endeavour.
You, are, of course, aware of the ongoing catastrophe of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of you will be aware of its potential link with “gain of function” research, defined recently in a report by WHO (2) as:
"Research that results in the acquisition of new biological phenotypes, or an enhancement of existing phenotypes. Gain-of-function research that is anticipated to enhance the transmissibility or virulence (or both) of potential pandemic pathogens raises significant biosafety and biosecurity risks, as well as dual-use concerns that may warrant additional oversight’.
Some of you will know that the Lancet Commission about SARS-Co-V-2 (3) concluded that:
“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape.”
The key message of an even more recent report (released October 20, 2022) published by the United Nations Environment Programme (4) into the pandemic makes a similar case, stating as a “key message” that:
"The leading hypothesis to explain its origin is that the causal virus, SARS-CoV-2 (a coronavirus) has evolved naturally in an ecological milieu in which different species of farmed or smuggled animals, or both, exist in proximity. A more speculative hypothesis is that the causal virus either escaped from a laboratory after either being brought there for purposes of study or escaped after evolving in a laboratory owing to experimentation."
This report **(for which I am sole author)** concludes:
“it is possible that the crisis caused by the current pandemic will lead to a fundamental awakening to the danger of humanity’s recent trajectory, energizing reforms such as improved governance and cooperation, a new economic system, greater respect for nature and reduced corruption. To this end, greater transparency is required, particularly concerning the ethics of gain of function research.”
A letter (in press) **(for which I am sole author)** (5) comparing this UNEP report with another UNEP report (published in 2020) (6) argues that “Critics of such experimentation (i.e. gain of function of concern) argue that it has profound risks, and requires exemplary governance, transparency and oversight if it is to be safely undertaken.
This letter also proposes that laboratory created (or “laboratory-nurtured”) organisms (such as evolving by serial passage in animal models, including genetically altered animal models, such as mice with human airway cells), should be regarded as “novel entities”. As most of you know, this is one of the planetary boundaries, and thus is relevant to planetary health. By extension, such organisms are relevant to ecohealth and to One Health. This letter also points out that the foreword to the recent WHO report, written by the WHO chief scientist, already links “biorisk management” to One Health.
The risk of creating potentially pandemic pathogens was explicitly recognised in the Cambridge Declaration (2014) (7) but it is also implicit in the warning given by the Committee on Recombinant DNA Molecules, chaired by Paul Berg. In 1974 this committee stated:
“Several groups of scientists are now planning to use this technology to create recombinant DNAs from a variety of other viral, animal, and bacterial sources. Although such experiments are likely to facilitate the solution of important theoretical and practical biological problems, they would also result in the creation of novel types of infectious DNA elements whose biological proper they would also result in the creation of novel types of infectious DNA elements whose biological properties cannot be completely predicted in advance. There is serious concern that some of these artificial recombinant DNA molecules could prove biologically hazardous” (8).
These ideas are surely no more challenging today (in the Anthropocene) than the concept that greenhouse gases or biodiversity loss could influence human health was to pioneers in those fields, including my mentor, the late Prof Tony McMichael (a co-editor, with Pim Martens, and Jonathan Patz, of Global Change and Human Health, one of the two main precursor journals of EcoHealth).
I therefore appeal, **if you are sympathetic** for each of you to use your influence with Ecohealth and its parent association to explore these ideas.
I also recommend that “ethics” be more prominent on the EcoHealth website, and that you consider appointing several ethical advisors. I also recommend that EcoHealth publish an editorial (or a guest editorial) which revisits the debate over “gain of function” research, to follow its earlier one, from 2012 (for which I was a co-author, as are several recipients of this email) (9).
References
1. https://www.springer.com/journal/10393/aims-and-scope
2. WHO (2022) Global Guidance Framework for the Responsible use of the Life Sciences. Mitigating biorisks and governing dual-use research. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240056107
3. Sachs J.D., Karim S.S.A., Aknin L., et al. (2022) The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet; 400: 1224-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01585-9
4. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2022) COVID-19: A Warning. Addressing Environmental Threats and the Risk of Future Pandemics in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: UNEP. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/40871
5. Butler C.D. (2022) Comparing two United Nations Environment Programme reports on COVID-19. Science in One Health: 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soh.2022.100003
6. UNEP (2020) Preventing the Next Pandemic: Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/preventing-future-zoonotic-disease-outbreaks-protecting-environment-animals-and
7. Cambridge Working Group. (2014) Consensus statement on the creation of potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs). http://www.cambridgeworkinggroup.org/documents/statement.pdf
8. Committee on Recombinant DNA Molecules, Berg P., Baltimore D., et al. (1974) Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (USA); 71(7): 2593-4. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.71.7.2593
9. Jeggo M., Butler C., Jing F., Weinstein P., Daszak P. (2012) EcoHealth and the influenza A/H5N1 dual use issue. EcoHealth; 9: 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0768-4
No comments:
Post a Comment