The corona virus has been with us for over two years. But we still don’t know where it comes from. The laboratory theory is particularly hotly debated. This should now be checked, as recommended by a WHO expert council, of which top virologist Christian Drosten is also a member.
Did it come from the lab? Did it come from the animal market? Was it a bat – or was it a pangolin? Since the beginning of the pandemic, myths and theories have surrounded the origin of the corona virus. And the search for the truth is tough.
In order to finally create clarity, the World Health Organization (WHO) set up an independent expert council (SAGO) last year. This should examine the various theories – and now recommended in a new report to check the laboratory thesis. Because of this, new indications have appeared again and again in the past few months. Top virologist Christian Drosten is also part of this body.
He spoke out vehemently against the laboratory theory for a long time. Nevertheless, later in an interview with the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, he too was at least “surprised” by certain practices in which field mouse viruses were modified in the laboratory using genetic engineering. “Things were definitely done in Wuhan that could be described as dangerous,” said he – however, emphasized at the same time: “But the Sars-CoV-2 virus could not have come out of it.”
The coronavirus first appeared in Wuhan, China in 2019. Research is being carried out on corona viruses there – which is why the thesis is always being raised as to whether the virus did not simply escape there. Initially, this theory found favor in circles of conspiracy theorists. And China has so far vehemently denied such allegations. But there are always new indications and speculations that strengthen the suspicion of a laboratory accident.
Top virologist Alexander Kekulé also wrote a year ago in an article on FOCUS Online: “The accidental release from a laboratory [is] one of the possibilities that definitely have to be considered.”
The fact that the fairly obvious possibility of a so-called lab leak was taboo for a long time had “political and – unfortunately also – scientific reasons”. Because, “if the pandemic had instead been caused by a laboratory accident, and also by researchers from the same field, it would be a disaster for the whole scene.”
However, the WHO expert council now wants to create clarity and calls for the “assessment of potential scenarios in which a failure of the biosafety procedures has led to a possible laboratory-related infection with the pathogen investigated,” says the report.
However, the new recommendation says nothing about how likely the laboratory thesis is, emphasized WHO Council President Marietjie Venter. Studies are also needed to disprove them. The most likely thesis is that the virus jumped from an animal to humans via an intermediate host.
Everything will be done to implement the SAGO recommendations, said WHO Corona expert Maria van Kerkhove. But this requires the cooperation of the countries. Because not all members of the almost 30-strong expert council agree with the recommendation: scientists from three countries, from China, Russia and Brazil, reject it, as they state in a footnote of the report.
Tensions had already existed between researchers and politicians from China and other countries, particularly the United States. Former US President Donald Trump blamed China for the spread of the virus. Because of the tensions, the international experts were only able to enter China in 2021.
China’s rejection has consequences for the verification of the thesis. Because the country not only rejects the theory that the virus could have come from a Chinese laboratory. Beijing is also rejecting the arrival of another international group of experts to search for the origin of the virus.
However, as Council President Venter emphasized, numerous questions are now open. About the markets in Wuhan, the origin of animals and early possible corona infected people in China. The Council now wants to develop guidelines so that future investigations into pandemic outbreaks can be started more quickly.
