by Almost two-thirds of UK scientists think China has not been open and transparent about the origins of Covid, and more than a quarter think the pandemic was leaked China Laboratory.
However, the majority (67 percent) believe the virus is of natural origin and not deliberately engineered.
The results of the survey, carried out by the Telegraph and Censuswide, show a split in the scientific world as to how the coronavirus pandemic came about.
Few scientists believe the virus is not natural (16 percent) and most experts seem to adhere to one of two theories: either that the virus spread directly from animals to humans, via a seafood market Probably Huanan, or an animal virus being studied by. intentional or accidental leakage of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
An anonymous survey of nearly 200 lecturers in all disciplines across UK universities revealed a close split between the “lab leak” and “no lab leak” school of thought among the 125 respondents, with 41 percent of them in favor. the west
Over a third of them answered “no comment” or “prefer not to say”.
The origins of the coronavirus pandemic have been a divisive topic since the first cases emerged in Wuhan in late 2019. Fierce arguments have erupted between warring factions of scientists, often ending constructive debate.
Most of the conversation about the possibility of a lab leak at the center of the lockdown was shut down after a group of scientists wrote in the Lancet that they “strongly criticized conspiracy theories”.
Ongoing investigations, including a US Congressional Inquiry, have raised concerns about the biosecurity of the WIV, which was known to be storing and working on coronavirus before the pandemic.
Professor James Wood, head of the department of veterinary medicine at Cambridge University, said that although the survey’s sample size was small, it made a “useful” distinction between the two laboratory leak cases.
“There was a lot of confusion or conflict between the lab leak hypothesis and whether it was a man-made virus. This survey pulls these particular questions apart,” he said.
A ‘plausible’ laboratory theory
Dr Simon Clarke, associate professor of cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, said: “It seemed entirely plausible to me that Covid escaped from a laboratory, but that doesn’t mean it was deliberate or as a result of unfavorable action.
“Laboratories like the one in Wuhan routinely collect and store samples of the pathogens they are studying, so Covid could have been collected from a wild animal, brought to the lab for study, but accidentally released due to a lapse in biosecurity.”
However, Professor Ravindra Gupta, an expert in clinical microbiology at the University of Cambridge, said the prevailing belief is that the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolved naturally.
“The lay of the land among scientists is people saying it’s probably of natural origin through the market; there were lots of animals and there was evidence of the SARS virus, so that’s probably what happened.
“But we cannot ignore that laboratory work was carried out at unsafe levels of containment in Wuhan. It may have been leaked from a Chinese lab and should be taken seriously.”
Scientists also criticized China for its role in the pandemic, with two-thirds agreeing that “China has not been open and transparent about the origins of Covid-19”.
Professor Wood said the slow release of information from China probably increased the uncertainty about the origins of Covid.
“In addition to the fact that retrospective investigations of outbreaks often fail to identify specific sources of an epidemic, even when there is full official openness, it is not clear that further investigations will now be able to identify a source,” he said.
Professor Clarke agreed, saying: “We probably missed the opportunity to find out if that really happened.”
‘China behaved badly throughout’
Professor Lawrence Gostin, a distinguished university professor at Georgetown University in the US, and director of the O’Neill Institute, a WHO collaborative center on global health law, said China had “behaved well throughout the pandemic”.
“It is not a good global citizen and may be partly responsible for the failure of an early response to help contain the virus,” Professor Gostin said.
“China was late in reporting the outbreak to the WHO, misrepresented to the WHO that transmission was limited from person to person, and blocked any attempt at an independent scientific investigation into the origins of Covid.
“Because of China, the world may not know the whole truth. After the whole world suffered from Covid-19, China’s actions were inexplicable. “
Controversial experiments
Scientists have also been questioned about the usefulness and risks of gain-of-function laboratory experiments, which take a virus and give it enhanced, sometimes lethal and transmissible abilities.
One-third of those questioned (34 percent) thought these experiments were necessary to prevent future pandemics, but the same percentage said they “risk triggering future pandemics.”
“They can only be protected if they have important immediate public health benefits,” Professor Gupta said, adding that they must be “strictly regulated”.
“I think the survey shows that people believe in the ability of science to answer questions, but some of these experiments are risky.”
Professor Gupta, who is also co-chair of the Independent Task Force on Pandemic Risk Research, recently submitted a report to the UN, which stated that a research-related incident could have caused Covid.
“This survey is an independent validation of what we’ve just put out,” he told the Telegraph.
“Scientists are saying, anonymously, that they agree with the findings of the report. There are risks associated with doing this work, but this kind of work is also necessary to save lives in the future.”
Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University in America, disagrees, however, and believes that gain-of-function research has no civilian application.
He said: “It does not provide any useful information for preventing pandemics and it does not provide any useful information for responding to pandemics. It is not required for the development of any vaccine or therapeutic agent and does not contribute to the development of that vaccine.”
Virologists at the WIV have previously denied claims of a laboratory leak.
