An open letter about ethics, to the editorial board of the journal EcoHealth

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

Global Environmental Outlook 6: a critique of its opening sentence

The 6th Global Environmental Outlook has been released. This is the most important written product of the United Nations Environment Programme, appearing approximately at 5 year intervals.

The opening sentence of the executive summary of the first chapter reads:

"Providing a decent life and well-being for nearly 10 billion people by 2050, without further compromising the ecological limits of our planet and its benefits, is one of the most serious challenges and responsibilities humanity has ever faced.” 

The part I have highlighted in pink is powerful.

However, the part in red is at best confusing and at worst logically false, and either way it conveys (no doubt unintentionally) complacency.

What do the authors mean by "compromising"?  One definition I found was "expediently accepting standards that are lower than is desirable"; e.g. we were not prepared to compromise on safety."

A possible alternative to "compromising" (in this sentence) is "approaching", or "transgressing". But the idea that human activities will not further (or additionally) approach - or come closer to - the ecological limits is sadly misconceived. Ongoing damage to natural capital is inevitable, given that population is rising and the poor have a lot of catching up to do in terms of per capita resource consumption. Even if we do not collectively breach limits, we will certainly come closer to them.

Alternatively, but more far-fetched, is the idea that the authors intend to convey that humans might alter the limits. Technically, if humans had far greater knowledge and technological capacity, they might be able to do this, such as changing the planetary boundaries - but most people rightly would think that is hubris, especially by 2050.

After working on this blog (for well over an hour!) I think the authors probably intended "compromising" to mean "approaching" or "transgressing". 

Another weakness of this opening sentence is that it does not mention the word "social". There are also social limits, such as were reached, only yesterday, when  the Sudanese President was overthrown, in part because of increasing civil unrest due to reduced prosperity in part due to falling oil revenues - even though, officially, per person income in Sudan is suppose to be increasing.

So, the sentence would be clearer if written as:  "Providing a decent life and well-being for nearly 10 billion people by 2100, without pushing demands on ecological and social capacity beyond irreversible thresholds, thus triggering immense harm to human health and well-being on a planetary scale, is an immensely difficult challenge.” (Key changes italicised).

Note that I changed 2050 to 2100. It will be difficult to avoid these thresholds, on a global scale, by 2050, but perhaps not "immensely" so. It is possible that the buffers that separate us from those limits are wider than we currently appreciate, even though an increasing number of cases of "regional overload" are occurring, such as those described in the Global Report on Food Crises 2019. By 2050 we will definitely come closer to these limits, but we may nor critically exceed them - if we are lucky and work hard. But the challenge to avoid such limits by 2100, even if we greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, will be much harder, as climate change is but one aspect of the many challenges that civilization faces.

Bangkok: a precarious lizard, scarcely any stars

Last week I returned from a UNEP meeting in Bangkok. I took the airport express each way; coming in it was great. However, returning proved very difficult even on a Saturday afternoon, even though the station was only 4 kms from my nice hotel. 

First, I had to find a taxi driver who could understand the word "airport link". I asked for one at the hotel, but none appeared after about 5 minutes, and the doormen seemed to have disappeared. Fearing that I might have been forgotten, but confident I knew the direction, I decided to find my own transport. But all the taxis that passed me were full. Eventually I reached a red light, where a motor bike rider offered me a lift (including my suitcase and computer bag) .. but I declined. Crossing a canal, I headed in the same direction. Just past the canal, I finally found an empty taxi. He seemed to understand my request. But I was alarmed as he immediately went at 90 degrees to what I thought was the correct direction (and which in the end proved to be the right direction). 

At first, I gave my driver the benefit of the doubt. The traffic on the original street I was walking on was fluid, but on this diversion at right angles we quickly reached parked cars masquerading as moving traffic. I watched the meter rise from 35 Baht (flagfall) to 49 Baht while we moved about two car lengths (in what seemed like 5 minutes). I watched him study the map I showed him (with names in English and Thai) in ways that increasingly convinced me he could not read a map. Beginning to panic, I gave him 60 Baht and got out of the taxi, immediately speeding my progress by a great deal.

Eventually I found a tuk tuk driver who seemed to understand (and who soon proved he did). 

The 4 kms took me 60 minutes, I walked about half way. 

The inefficiencies in downtown Bangkok traffic are immense, although outside downtown I know it is better. How many person hours are wasted in traffic? Not to mention fossil fuels? How derelict were the planners? (Though, finally, a metro system is developing.)

In my week in Bangkok the people were almost entirely beautifully graceful, patient and polite.

But I scarcely saw or heard any birds. The air was perpetually gray. Due to pollution from dust, smog and light whole generations of Thais living in Bangkok must scarcely see any stars, let alone the wondrous Milky Way. Air pollution damages lung, heart and brain health. 

For me, the brightest spot was seeing a two foot long monitor lizard (smaller than in the picture) which had successfully crossed a wide road. How heroic, I thought, and how precarious.

see https://bangkokherps.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/the-giant-lizards-of-lumpani/

 

Biodiversity, politics and corruption in South East Asia: the invisible cage

In early 2016 I gave the keynote talk on human health and biodiversity at an ASEAN (Association of South East Asian States) conference on biodiversity, held in in Bangkok, Thailand. (My slides are here.) My strongest impression was of political oppression, lack of freedom, as obvious as smog which often permeates parts of Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, due to the clearing and burning of forests, largely for palm oil. 

In my talk (shortened at the last minute to 20 minutes, even though I had been told for weeks I'd have 35 minutes or so) I raised several sensitive issues: corruption and palm oil plantations, useless, cruel and biodiversity-harming medicines, especially of body parts, and population pressure, development and biodiversity. (Human population pressure in Africa has recently been recognised as an important contributor to the survival of elephants, by Erik Solheim, director of the United Nations Environment Programme). 


A significant loss of species, not just charismatic megafauna such as rhinoceroses and bears "milked" for their bile, but lesser known creatures such as pangolins (scaly ant-eater) occurs because of unproven and implausible beliefs in the medicinal powers of their body parts (pangolin scales, rhino horns). Raising that issue may offend the Chinese (especially) .. but surely we should try.

A baby Sunda Pangolin

I suggested, as politely as I possibly could, that something like an anti-fur campaign could be tried to change the minds, to embarrass, the consumers of endangered species such as powdered rhinoceros horns. What is better for impotence? Chewing your nails (keratin) or swallowing rhinoceros horn powder (keratin)?

(Actually I lacked the courage to be quite so blunt). 

***

These points were as successful as a lead balloon, and I only heard one other mention of corruption in the whole 3 day conference (also by a farang, i.e. not a local). My conclusion was that the hundreds of ASEAN attendees in a luxurious hotel owe their precarious and highly unusual (i.e. in the context of their ASEAN countries) middle-class status to conforming with spoken and unspoken rules, which form a highly effective speech-limiting device (and probably thought-limiting too). An invisible cage.

This feeling was heightened by my experience at a lavish dinner, where I sat with VIPs who seemed to have as much passion for biodiversity as Donald Trump. We were entertained by acrobatic representatives from different ASEAN nations, a colourful display completely dissociated from biodiversity.

Clearly, however, anyone with similar views to me, involved at that conference, but working in an ASEAN country (highlights: Thailand: military dictatorship, increasingly authoritarian; Burma: beset with civil war and government-endorsed ethnic cleansing; Cambodia: the most corrupt ASEAN nation; Indonesia: converting the native people and natural resources of West Papua to money and palm oil, not to mention Kalimantan, palm oil and the haze; Malaysia: a notoriously corrupt prime minister, also palm oil corruption, including allegations of quasi-slavery and human trafficking; Philippines: a president who openly supports killing without trial; Singapore: a well organised prosperous city state with little freedom and no wilderness); could not risk endorsing me, nor even speaking to me; and the ASEAN-born critics of these practices (who do exist, albeit in tiny numbers) probably couldn’t attend, due to its cost, perhaps blocked visas (I’m not sure of the visa rules within ASEAN), or perhaps as they are imprisoned, have been killed, or live in genuine and legitimate fear.

Given the invisible cage that operates even in supposed democracies the future does look bleak. Solutions do exist, but there is a very long way to go.

PS.

I think few people think politically in the way I do; the people in their "invisible cages" do not hate biodiversity, but are not fully conscious of what is going on. If the people at the top of these human pyramids genuinely wanted to protect biodiversity then the rank and file would probably, in general, act in ways that genuinely have that effect. But I think most people at the top see biodiversity as an abstract property which they can continue to degrade. They undoubtedly have access to their own green space, if they want it. As long as a few orangutan survive in zoos (or maybe Brunei) palmoil etc should be maximised. Maybe the officially sanctioned biodiversity movements have a tiny protective effect; I don't like to be so cynical .. but, then, think of West Papua; it is being continually transformed in the name of material consumption and political power for a few. The biodiversity of West Papua must be declining every day.

PPS signs of the taboo lifting? See "Population, corruption must be addressed to halt biodiversity loss, scientists say" (2018)

See also Romanelli et al. 2015. Climate change, biodiversity and human health. In: World Health Organization Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (eds.) Connecting Global Priorities: Biodiversity and Human Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity,: 222-237 (to which I also contributed).

See also Tibet, China, protest immolation and social medicine; and Tibetan protest self-immolation: ecology, health and politics