We’ve all heard bizarre conspiracy theories around COVID-19, whether that’s the vaccine containing a microchip or that someone designed the virus in a lab. Well, a bold new study now claims an unnatural origin of the virus is actually more likely than a natural source.
The researchers, from the University of New South Wales in Australia, argue that the existing debate has largely focused on medical evidence but not “other intelligence”, which they incorporated into their method.
They say that their findings do not prove that COVID-19 originated in a lab, but rather show the theory should not be quickly dismissed.
But other scientists are saying the team’s method could involve a lot of bias – and either way, both sides agree that the research, published in journal Risk Analysis, does not yield a definite conclusion.
So, what exactly is the new evidence for the so-called 'lab theory?'
undefined
What is the case for an unnatural origin of Covid-19?
If you ask someone where they think COVID-19 came from, the answer will depend on who you’re asking. But many people will say it came from a bat, or a meat market, or even a pangolin.
But the new paper sets out several cases against one of these so-called zoonotic (animal-derived) origins. Firstly, they focus on an unusual aspect of the virus’ biology that doesn’t occur in viruses of the same lineage. This is known as the ‘furin cleavage site’, and it is what enables viral entry into human cells.
This evidence “has been raised and investigated multiple times”, Dr Jeremy Rossman, lecturer in virology at the University of Kent, told BBC Science Focus. But, he says, “this is far from being any sort of conclusive proof”.
One of the other main arguments is that the seafood market in Wuhan, China, where the virus is thought to have initially spread, is just eight miles from a research facility which was studying bat coronaviruses at the time.
Just one year earlier in 2018, this same research facility submitted a proposal to allow them to insert the furin cleavage site into a group of coronaviruses.
How was the new study put together?
Essentially, the researchers evaluated all of the medical and non-medical evidence available and ranked different criteria in terms of how much they indicated an unnatural origin. These criteria included indicators like the virus’ geographic distribution, unusual strains, and transmission mode.
This method involved using a risk analysis tool known as the Grunow-Finke assessment tool (mGFT). In this process, two researchers independently interrogated evidence and then gave the relevant category a score out of 3 (0 meaning no data was available, while 3 points represented a “clear indication or proof of an unnatural origin”).
For example, the categories of ‘biological risk’ and ‘unusual strain’ were each given 3 points. This is due to the location and hygiene standards of the research facility, and the unusual biological structure of the virus compared to other coronaviruses.
This basically means that if the final score was under 30, it would indicate that the outbreak was natural, while a score over 30 suggested an unnatural origin. The result: 41 out of a maximum of 60.
Read more:
These values were then reviewed by a further two researchers, who used an algorithm to validate the COVID-19 results against previous epidemics. The Australian researchers say this process helps to avoid biased results – but others disagree.
“My big concern about this tool is that the scores for each of the criteria are determined subjectively by each person rating the criteria,” Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at UEA’s Norwich Medical School, told BBC Science Focus.
“It is entirely possible and indeed likely that if applied by people who believe in the lab leak then the tool would conclude that it is an unnatural event” – and the same vice versa.
Hunter adds that the epidemics the tool was validated on also had unknown origins.
Paper author Prof Raina MacIntyre told BBC Science Focus: “The scores may change in either direction depending on who rates the criteria, but the final result is still likely to show that an unnatural origin is plausible, not a low-probability, fringe theory, and that a natural origin is also plausible.”
According to Rossman, the paper “does keep the door open to the idea of an unnatural origin of the virus, but we are still very far from being able to prove the origins of the pandemic, one way or another.”
About our experts:
An honorary Senior Lecturer in Virology at the University of Kent, Dr Jeremy Rossman and the Founder of Research-Aid Networks. As well as the molecular biology of viruses, Rossman studies trust relations in public health.
Prof Paul Hunter researches the epidemiology of emerging infectious diseases at the University of East Anglia (UEA)'s Norwich Medical School, particularly where those diseases are linked to environmental factors.
Prof Raina MacIntyre heads the Biosecurity Research Program at the Kirby Institute (UNSW Medicine). She has been researching pandemics, vaccines, and respiratory viruses for over 30 years.
Read more: