Science Journal reporter Jon Cohen. Photograph courtesy of Jon Cohen
Throughout the pandemic, one among my go-to sources for context was science journalist Jon Cohen. Cohen is a long-time infectious illness reporter and a senior correspondent for Science journal. He has written greater than 100 deeply reported tales about all facets of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, together with how the virus impacts the physique’s immune system and the worldwide race to entry vaccines.
Now that the acute part of the pandemic is over, the story of the place SARS-CoV-2 got here from is gaining extra prominence. Did it come from an animal? Or from a analysis lab? The reply stays elusive, although the larger share of proof factors to an animal.
In mid-July 2022, Cohen wrote about a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee listening to on the origin of COVID-19 throughout which congressional lawmakers tried to attain political factors by casting blame. I assumed it will be helpful for AHCJ members to listen to Cohen’s perspective on the continued controversy about COVID-19’s origin and recommendation for overlaying it, in addition to what the vital infectious illness tales are actually that COVID is not a world well being emergency.
Responses have been evenly edited for brevity and readability.
You have got at all times stated that you simply approached the COVID-19 origin story with an open thoughts. I should admit that in February and March 2020, I dismissed the story that it got here from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
You recognize, this will get blended up quite a bit. In case you take a look at a narrative I wrote on Jan. 31, 2020, there have been clear conspiracy theories pushing the lab leak thought. However there have been different lab leak situations that weren’t [conspiracy theories]. There have been conspiracy theories that this was a bioweapon, and people theories had been coming from unreliable sources that had robust anti-China biases with no proof. And the primary surge of tales within the media a few lab leak had been a few bioweapon. On the similar time, there was a risk [that wasn’t a conspiracy] that the virus wasn’t engineered as a bioweapon [but rather as an experiment]. So, I feel it’s vital to parse it like that as a result of when individuals communicate in regards to the lab leak, they imply various things.
I simply learn journalist Alison Young’s book “Pandora’s Gamble” in regards to the historical past of lab accidents, and I realized simply what number of lab accidents there have been prior to now 5 many years. So, what do you concentrate on the lab leak principle?
Yeah, numerous lab accidents have occurred, however we’ve to be actually cautious [with this]. Do laboratory accidents occur and infect individuals and kill individuals? Completely. There’s little doubt about that. May the laboratory on the Wuhan Institute of Virology via varied situations have been the spark of this pandemic? Certain, it may have. [But] present me the proof {that a} lab leak sparked the COVID-19 pandemic. What it comes right down to is sorting via potentialities and possibilities and shifting away from principle and shifting towards proof. Over time, proof naturally accrues for all of those [infectious disease] origin tales. This isn’t my first origin story rodeo. I’ve lined a number of origin tales prior to now and over time we see proof that helps or doesn’t help totally different theories. What we’re witnessing over this three-year time frame is theories are beginning to give technique to proof.
And the evidence right now points towards a zoonotic spillover occasion, that may be traced to in all probability the unlawful sale of wildlife on the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, proper?
There are way more printed peer-reviewed research and even preprints, with information and analyses, that help the market origin than there are for the lab leak. So, on that straightforward metric of variety of peer-reviewed publications, there’s no comparability.
What about the evidence that there was a strain of a bat coronavirus on the Wuhan Institute that was genetically 96% much like SARS-CoV-2 virus?
There was a sequence of the virus that had 96.2% genetic similarity, however they didn’t develop that virus in a tradition. They didn’t develop the overwhelming majority of samples that they had. Moreover, in the event you do an evolutionary evaluation of that virus sequence to SARS-CoV-2, it will have taken a very long time to turn into SARS-CoV-2. That sequence shouldn’t be intently associated to SARS-CoV-2. One shouldn’t be a precursor virus of the opposite.
What in regards to the assertion in the U.S. intelligence community that three lab workers had been in poor health in November with ‘flu-like’ signs?
We’ve been advised that, however when the proof is critically analyzed, it melts away. The employees inform me they weren’t sick. The intelligence group within the U.S. has many branches, and so they don’t discuss to one another. None of them have provided any proof as to how they got here to the conclusions that they got here to. The FBI stated it had medium confidence in its conclusion that it was a lab leak and the Department of Energy has low confidence in that situation, however there isn’t a documentation wherever that tells us something about how they got here to these conclusions.
What recommendation do it’s a must to journalists who wade into this story and wish to cowl it, notably political journalists who’re overlaying these hearings?
I feel that there are simply elementary guidelines of journalism that come into play right here. Observe the proof. Stay open-minded and skeptical about claims. Journalists have the talent set to ferret out dependable data. That’s what we do. Use the identical expertise right here. If it’s a unprecedented declare, it requires extraordinary proof. There’s a variety of confusion about this as a result of it’s being adjudicated in social media. Which isn’t an incredible venue for figuring this out. Neither is the intelligence group. It is a scientific query. We now have extra proof supporting the zoonotic origin right here than we do for different theories.
This origin story debate has spurred extra discussion about gain-of-function research and whether or not scientists must be experimenting with dangerous pathogens as a result of people who work in labs make errors. So, what do you consider the talk about gain-of-function analysis?
This pandemic has given extra consideration to realize of operate than it has ever obtained. The general public at giant didn’t know what achieve of operate was … and the pandemic has pushed it to the entrance burner, and it’s a worthy dialogue. Lab security is a worthy dialogue.
What infectious illness tales ought to journalists be overlaying now?
We at all times should be on alert for brand spanking new issues cropping up or for previous issues cropping up and inflicting issues. So, it’s monitoring each what’s taking place to handle issues from the previous which can be main issues on the planet, like tuberculosis and malaria, and in addition looking forward to every new outbreak of viruses like, Marburg or Ebola or malaria in the US or a measles outbreak in London brought on by under-vaccinating. It’s simply maintaining a tally of all of it. I search for instruments that aren’t getting used, that might be used to assist individuals to keep away from or survive infectious illnesses … Like with HIV, there’s at all times a problem of individuals figuring out that they’re contaminated and accessing treatment, or with [tuberculosis], Johnson and Johnson now will permit a generic drug to be made that can allow many individuals world wide to have entry to a medication that clearly saves lives.
