“Lab leak,” or the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) arose and escaped from a virology lab, has been a frequent topic on SBM since very early in the pandemic, for obvious reasons. After all, every outbreak or pandemic of a new pathogen over the last several decades had spawned conspiracy theories that the pathogen was a “bioweapon” that had escaped (or been intentionally released from) a laboratory, a list that included HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and H1N1. For instance, there was a major conspiracy theory about HIV/AIDS that involved its creation at Fort Detrick when scientists supposedly spliced together two other viruses, Visna and HTLV-1 and then tested on prison inmates. (Interestingly, this turned out to be a Russian propaganda operation codename Operation INFEKTION designed to blame the AIDS pandemic on the US biological warfare program.) So it was completely predictable that similar conspiracy theories would emerge about COVID-19. Despite the paucity of scientific evidence in support of lab leak in the virology community, it has emerged as the most popular explanation for COVID-19 on social media and even in the mainstream press, particularly in, but nowhere near limited to, right wing sources. In the context of that history, I was very interested to come across a commentary in the Journal of Virology by James Alwine and 40 other authors entitled The harms of promoting the lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 origins without evidence. In the lay press, there was also an article in STAT news by John P. Moore, one of the co-authors of the Journal of Virology commentary, entitled The coronavirus lab leak hypothesis is damaging science.
Both articles make a compelling argument that the scientific hypothesis turned conspiracy theory known as lab leak is causing harm to science. I wanted to take a look at the arguments made, which are compelling, but point out that lab leak is far from alone in terms of conspiracy theories that harm science, public health, and society in general. First, however, let’s take a step back.
Lab leak: A somewhat plausible scientific hypothesis turned conspiracy theory
As was completely predictable, it didn’t take long after the emergence of a major outbreak of pneumonia in late 2019/early 2020 due to a novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China for conspiracy theories to arise claiming that the novel pathogen had “leaked” from a lab, a claim that ultimately came to be known as the “lab leak.” The first version that I encountered claimed, based on the recently published nucleotide sequence of the coronavirus that later came to be named COVID-19, that the new pathogen had been the result of a failed attempt to develop a vaccine against SARS—which had threatened to become a pandemic in 2002—that had somehow “leaked” out of a lab. (Unsurprisingly, antivax conspiracy theorist James Lyons-Weiler made this claim on Del Bigtree‘s podcast in February 2020.) It didn’t take long for the conspiracy theory to—shall we say?—evolve to claims that COVID-19 was a bioweapon gone wrong (and escaped) or, as it became much clearer to the more “reasonable” conspiracy theorists that there were no compelling features in the nucleotide sequence of COVID-19 to indicate genetic engineering or “gain-of-function” research having produced the new virus, that a natural coronavirus collected from bats for study had somehow “leaked” from the lab. (I note that it’s very convenient that the coronavirus just happened to be one that could infect humans relatively efficiently and cause life-threatening disease in a minority.)
Conspiracy theories aside, however, I’ve been consistent in emphasizing that a lab leak origin for COVID-19 was possible. My position has simply been, since early on, that there has been no convincing scientific evidence for lab leak. Instead, the evidence promoted by lab leak adherents consists mainly of speculative handwaving based on the location of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the same city where the first outbreak was identified, misidentification of features of the virus (e.g., the furin cleavage site) as evidence of “engineering,” and extreme distrust of the Chinese government. In contrast, emerging evidence since very early in the pandemic has consistently favored a natural zoonotic origin for the virus; i.e., that, like many previous pathogens, SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, jumped from an animal reservoir to humans. Indeed, I had recognized by 2021 that, regardless of whether or not lab leak was possible as an explanation for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, evidence was far more in favor of zoonosis than lab leak, while the versions of lab leak that had taken hold among ideologues and politicians had rapidly become more of a conspiracy theory than a valid scientific hypothesis. Fast forward to a couple of months ago when I last discussed lab leak in the context of the New York Times inexplicably having decided to lend its platform and prestige to Alina Chan, whom I’ve dubbed the queen of lab leak conspiracy theories, publishing an op-ed by her on the same day that Anthony Fauci was scheduled to testify in front of the GOP-led House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic (HSSCP). While no new substantive evidence—nada, zero, zip!—has emerged for lab leak since 2021, evidence for zoonosis has only accumulated, as I have summarized a number of times. While one cannot yet entirely rule out lab leak as the origin for SARS-CoV-2, I tend to make that argument in the same way that I discuss alternative medicine quackery. At this point, the onus is on lab leak conspiracy theorists to produce actual positive scientific evidence for lab leak as the origin of SARS-CoV-2, rather than their usual spreading of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about current scientific evidence surrounding SARS-CoV-2 and its origins.
Most importantly, lab leak now shares all of the components of conspiracy theory that I discussed in May 2020, just as the full gravity of how horrific the pandemic would become was starting to dawn on the general public:
I won’t belabor this too much, but lab leak stories are contradictory. Was SARS-CoV-2 a “bioweapon”? Was it the result of “gain-of-function” research? Was it the result of a failed attempt to make a SARS vaccine? Was it just a natural coronavirus stored for study that had somehow “leaked”? Depending on which lab leak proponent you ask, it could be any or all of these! Of course, overriding suspicion and nefarious intent are largely self-explanatory, too, with the suspicion being mainly focused on China and its supposedly nefarious intent. (Remember, in a conspiracy theory, the Bad Thing is never due to incompetence, accident, or mischance; it’s always Them intending us harm. The overriding suspicion found in conspiratorial thinking results in the belief that nothing occurs by accident, which often results in re-interpreting randomness.) Of course, being authoritarian, the Chinese government sometimes made it too easy for conspiracy theorists to paint its actions in the worst possible light, but far more of the evidence supposedly supporting lab leak seems to be rooted in suspicion of the Chinese than in actual science. Naturally, any pandemic would produce the sense that “something must be wrong,” but in this case, although conspiracy theorists may occasionally abandon specific ideas when they become untenable, the revisions never change their overall feeling that “something must be wrong” and the “official account” is based on deception.
Most importantly, though, lab leak is immune to evidence. Even as scientific evidence accumulates in favor of zoonosis, with no concomitant accumulation of evidence in favor of lab leak, lab leak adherents fervently cling to their idea as the One True Origin of SARS-CoV-2. It doesn’t matter how lopsided in favor of zoonotic origin the scientific evidence base is. To the conspiracy theorist, that very lopsidedness is evidence that “they” (e.g., virologists, evolutionary biologists specializing in viruses, and other infectious disease scientists who have increasingly concluded that SARs-CoV-2 jumped to humans in a zoonotic event) are ideologically captured and evidence for “lab leak” is being either covered up or ignored.
But how do lab leak conspiracy theories harm science?
The proliferation of a conspiracy theory
Before we discuss how lab leak conspiracy mongering has harmed science, let’s set the stage by citing a passage in the Journal of Virology in which Alwine et al compare the two hypotheses, but, more importantly, contrast the scientific attitude towards evidence with the attitude towards evidence exhibited by lab leak proponents:
There are two broad competing hypotheses for the origins of SARS-CoV-2: (i) the lab leak hypothesis, the most discussed version of which posits that the virus was modified, or even created, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and, by some mechanism, escaped the laboratory; and (ii) the zoonosis hypothesis, wherein the virus emerged into the human population through a naturally occurring animal-to-human transmission. Viruses often spill over into humans, but these are typically dead-end events that rarely lead to sustained human-to-human transmission and rarely spark a pandemic. Wildlife coronaviruses have long been poised for emergence into humans (1). It is estimated that there are ~66,280 people infected with SARS-CoVs each year due to human-to-bat contact, most of which result in asymptomatic infections with limited or no human-to-human transmission (2). However, in the past 25 years, there have been at least 12 instances of zoonotic transfer of viruses into humans, including three coronaviruses, which resulted in epidemics or pandemics (3).
Dr. Fauci testified that, after examining the scientific data, most scientists have concluded that SARS-CoV-2 most likely emerged in humans as a zoonosis. The evidence supports the scenario that two distinct ancestral lineages of SARS-CoV-2 jumped from animals into humans, and that the Huanan Seafood Market in Hubei Provence, China, where wild animals were routinely present and slaughtered, was the epicenter of the pandemic (4–9). Importantly, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he remains open to evidence supporting a lab leak if it were to become available. Indeed, all scientists must be open to this possibility. Factoring in new data that are sound and validated, even if a prevailing hypothesis were contradicted, is an essential aspect of scientific training. A critical guiding principle of science is that knowledge is continually revised and updated based on quality new evidence.
Again, let’s go back to one of the characteristics of conspiracy theories, that they are immune to evidence. In contrast, science is not. If someone were to produce highly compelling scientific evidence in favor of lab leak as the origin for SARS-CoV-2, scientists would consider it, debate it, try to replicate and expand upon it, and then, if the evidence passed all those tests, lab leak would supplant zoonosis as the dominant hypothesis. As I like to point out, the process would likely be messy and contentious and might take longer than one might wish, but science does eventually correct itself in response to evidence. I can honestly say that I have not seen a single piece of evidence or a single argument for lab leak that is not a rehash or modified version of evidence or arguments that I first saw in 2020. Yet, none of that stopped the New York Times from not only green lighting an op-ed by conspiracy theorist Alina Chan entitled Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points. In actuality, the NYT did more than just publish this op-ed; it promoted it, lent considerable resources to producing eye-popping graphics for it, and published it on the same day that Fauci testified. (Complicit media, indeed!) Alwine et al note that Chan’s “presented the same points she has offered over the past four years” that are “based on conjecture, correlation, and anecdote” and misrepresent and underplay “the existing scientific data supporting a zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
As Alwine et al note:
Many questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 remain unanswered and may never be fully resolved. We cannot currently disprove the lab leak hypothesis. Nevertheless, the lines of evidence needed to validate one hypothesis over another are not epistemically comparable (16). Validating the zoonotic origin is a scientific question that relies on history, epidemiology, and genomic analysis, that when taken together, support a natural spillover as the probable origin. This evidence is driven by scientific data that must be gathered and interpreted by experts. Much of the evidence that could have been obtained from animals at the Huanan Market was forever lost due to the clearance and cleansing of the market before any animals could be tested. Nonetheless, the available scientific evidence supports a zoonotic origin. Validating the lab leak hypothesis requires intelligence evidence that the WIV possessed or carried out work on a SARS-CoV-2 precursor virus prior to the pandemic. Neither the scientific community nor multiple western intelligence agencies have found such evidence.
Sound familiar? The same lack of epistemic comparability applies to the evidence base for many of the medical claims that we routinely discuss on SBM, including antivax, acupuncture, alternative medicine quackery, and homeopathy. As I like to say with respect to lab leak, just because it is possible and cannot be absolutely disproven at present does not imply that it is a hypothesis whose likelihood of being correct is equivalent to zoonosis.
How lab leak harms science
Unfortunately, as is frequently the case, among those with preexisting beliefs predisposed to accept a conspiratorial narrative, science generally loses in the public narrative. We have seen this phenomenon play out for evolution, climate science, vaccines, alternative medicine, and other scientific topics. In the case of lab leak, Alwine et al note:
Despite the absence of evidence for the escape of the virus from a lab, the lab leak hypothesis receives persistent attention in the media, often without acknowledgment of the more solid evidence supporting zoonotic emergence (17). This discourse has inappropriately led a large portion of the general public to believe that a pandemic virus arose from a Chinese lab. These unfounded assertions are dangerous. As discussed in detail below, they place unfounded blame and responsibility on individual scientists, which drives threats and attacks on virologists. It also stokes the flames of an anti-science, conspiracy-driven agenda, which targets science and scientists even beyond those investigating the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The inevitable outcome is an undermining of the broader missions of science and public health and the misdirecting of resources and effort. The consequence is to leave the world more vulnerable to future pandemics, as well as current infectious disease threats (17).
One of the authors, Angela Rasmussen, has described on X, the hellsite formerly known as Twitter, just how lab leak has fueled threats to her and other virologists:
Again, does this sound familiar? Long before COVID-19, Dr. Paul Offit described in his book Autism’s False Prophets how he and his family had suffered threats from antivaxxers that had led his University and hospital to increase security and screen his mail. This was in 2008. More recently in the era of the pandemic, Dr. Peter Hotez has been relentlessly harassed for his speaking out against antivaccine misinformant. In another branch of science entirely, climate scientists like Michael Mann have been harassed by climate science deniers in similar manners. Heck, even I, a mere blogger with nowhere near the voice of someone like Drs. Offit, Hotez, or Rasmussen, have been harassed on and off since 2005, including a campaign of defamation by Mike Adams and a spurious libel suit by a quack. I, too, have even received the odd death threat, although nothing on the order of what Drs. Offit, Hotez, and Rasmussen have received. Then, of course, there are always the random social media posts fervently hoping that I will be included in the group of “guilty” scientists and physicians that antivaxxers fantasize about dragging before tribunals and hanging.
Then, of course, if we are too outspoken, negative, or sarcastic, the very same people fueling hate against scientists compare us to Hamas:
All of this is a result of how conspiratorial thinking by definition requires villains. Who are the villains in the lab leak narrative? Scientists, of course, specifically the scientists who supposedly either created SARS-CoV-2 through reckless “gain-of-function” research (they didn’t) or carelessly let stored natural coronaviruses escape. In effect, this casting scientists as the villains in lab leak primes the public to distrust the very scientists working on preventing the next pandemic thusly:
Scientists who studied coronaviruses or led the response to the pandemic have been accused of engineering SARS-CoV-2 or allowing it to escape from a lab due to inadequate biosafety. Some have been unfairly accused of being part of an international cover-up or accused of taking bribes from NIH. Yet more scientists have been attacked for using objectively gathered data to conclude that zoonosis is the most likely origin of the pandemic or for simply engaging in communication of the evidence with the media and the general public. The unsubstantiated claims of the lab leak theory have provoked harassment, intimidation, threats and violence towards scientists, which are often vile in the online space. An article in Science reported that, of 510 researchers who had published on SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, 38% acknowledged harassment ranging from personal insults to threats of violence, “doxing,” and personal contact (18). A second survey, which included 1,281 scientists in a wide range of fields, found that 51% experienced at least one form of harassment, sometimes repeatedly for years.
As Dr. Moore notes in STAT:
My concern, and that of many other virologists, is that the evidence-light lab leak hypothesis is damaging the virology research community at a time when it has an essential role to play in the face of pandemic threats. The attacks on Fauci are far from unique. Coronavirus virologists have been falsely accused of engineering SARS-CoV-2, allowing it to escape from a lab due to inadequate safety protocols, being participants in an international cover-up, and taking grants as bribes from NIAID for favoring the zoonosis hypothesis. There is mounting harassment, intimidation, threats and violence towards scientists that are particularly vile in the online space.
I’ve written about how conspiracy theorists portray NIH grants not as funding that is awarded on a competitive basis using scientific merit and supporting evidence as the main criteria to determine who gets funded, but rather as largesse doled out by a Godfather-like NIH to reward loyalty, in which scientists approach the NIH much like this:
As Alwine et al (and Moore) note, lab leak conspiracy theories, like other science-denying conspiracy theories, serve another purpose. They demoralize scientists to the point of wanting to quit in order to escape the harassment and just general hassle; alternatively, some seriously consider shifting the focus of their work to less politically charged topics, with the following dangerous results:
We now see a long-term risk of having fewer experts engaged in work that may help thwart future pandemics, and of fewer scientists willing to communicate the findings of sophisticated, fast-moving research topics that are important for global health. Research that could prepare us for future pandemics has been deferred, diverted, or abandoned (3). Most worrisome for future preparedness, the next generation of scientists has well-founded fears about entering fields related to emerging viruses and pandemic science (19–21).
I, too, fear that the science-denying conspiracy theories that have become so dominant will discourage young people interested in science from pursuing a scientific career. After all, an academic scientific career is damned hard enough as it is. The difficulty getting through graduate school, developing a research project, and then competing for limited funding to keep one’s research chugging along productively is draining enough. If you add to that the concern that your work will bring you under attack or force you to respond to attacks by conspiratorial politicians, social media influencers, and press and even face threats of physical violence, you can see how a career in science becomes a lot less attractive.
It’s not just the threat to scientists, though. The dominance of lab leak narratives in science can also result in policies that hinder science. For instance, the deceiving narratives regarding biosafety can paradoxically lead to less effective biosafety, as Alwine et al note:
While biosafety standards are critically important for research, the anxiety evoked by the lab leak hypothesis has resulted in some proposals for policies that, if adopted, would unnecessarily restrict research required for developing vaccines and antivirals in the US (20, 22). The US has one of the strongest and safest infrastructures for research globally. The policies aimed at virology research in the US will not protect against work with viruses of known pandemic potential occurring at inadequate biosafety containment (below biosafety level 3) in other countries, which poses the risk of lab exposures.
Indeed. The “concern” about biosafety exhibited by lab leak proponents goes beyond concern based on evidence and science to inform evidence-based strategies to improve biosafety and plows straight into the realm of paranoia. As Dr. Moore adds:
All virologists embrace the need for laboratory safety. None of them ignore the implications of the lab leak hypothesis — that there could be a future escape of a dangerous virus from a research laboratory. However, lab leak anxiety underpins proposals for policies that would unnecessarily restrict research on vaccines and antiviral agents in the U.S. The overarching concern here is that the lab leak narrative fuels mistrust in science and public health infrastructures. The increasingly virulent and widespread anti-science agenda damages individual scientists and their institutions, and hinders planning to counter future epidemics and pandemics.
Also, going back to Alwine et al:
Moreover, a looming threat for future pandemics is the illegal wildlife trade coupled with wet markets abroad. The US State Department and the United Nations (UN) estimate that the wildlife trade is the third largest illegal trafficking activity behind drugs and weapons, generating up to $20 billion annually. Animals slaughtered and sold in wet markets are a clear threat for zoonotic virus transmission to humans. Globally, policymakers have done little to curtail or effectively regulate the illegal wildlife trade and wet market practices. As well as the clear risk of future spillover events, these economic practices also undermine health security, destabilize habitats and communities, and fuel the spread of infectious diseases more generally. Further, high density commercial farming of animals (e.g., chickens, pigs, cattle) in the US and abroad also poses a major pandemic threat, as evidenced by the avian H5N1 influenza virus that is now spreading through dairy cows and other mammals with some transmission to humans. These wider dynamics underpin why our societal understanding about the origin of SARS-CoV-2 matters.
From an SBM perspective, I can’t help but note that much of the illegal trade in wildlife mentioned above involves trade in wildlife whose parts are used to produce quack treatments, particularly those rooted in traditional Chinese medicine. As I like to say, it’s all interrelated. In this case, the popularity of non-evidence-based quackery, including its integration into “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) and “integrative medicine” contributes to the demand for quack treatments that drive demand for the illegal wildlife trade.
Finally:
Science is humanity’s best insurance against threats from nature, but it is a fragile enterprise that must be nourished and protected (23). What is now happening to virology is a stark demonstration of what is happening to all of science. It will come to affect every aspect of science in a negative and possibly a dangerous way, as has already happened with climate science. It is the responsibility of scientists, research institutions, and scientific organizations to push back against the anti-virology attacks, because what we are seeing now may be the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
It is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. I like to argue that all science denial is a form of conspiracy theory. In this, barring compelling new evidence that has not been produced in four years and will likely never be produced, lab leak is no different from climate science denial, creationism, antivax, and the medical beliefs that result in quackery. All weaken the scientific enterprise and fuel distrust of science far beyond healthy skepticism based on a reality-based assessment of how science and medicine have performed historically. All have been strengthened immeasurably by the conspiracy theories that have arisen during the pandemic. It is long past time that we pushed back, as futile as the task might appear right now.