MA ore that five years after the declaration of the COVID -19 pandemic, its origins remain a subject of intense – and often acrimonious – debate – among scientists and the broader public. There are two wide and competing theories. The hypotheses of natural origin suggest that the pandemic began when a close relative of Sars-Cov-2 jumped from a wild animal to a human human Through the fauna trade. On the other hand, supporters of laboratory flight theories argue that the virus appeared when Chinese scientists were infected with activities associated with research.
An confusing aspect of the controversy is that eminent scientists continue to publish studies in the main scientific journals which, according to them, provide convincing evidence for hypotheses of natural origin. However, rather than solving the problem, each new proof seems to be broadening the gap further.
In many regions of the world, including The United States,, France and GermanyPublic opinion moves more and more to the theories of laboratory leaks, despite the lack of final evidence. In other words, an increasing number of people believe that the activities associated with research are just as likely, if not more, to have caused the pandemic.
A new documentary by Swiss filmmaker Christian Frei, entitled Blame: Bats, Politics and A Planet Unbalanced, puts the blame for this fracture squarely on the so-called “right fever swamp”, including Steve Bannon and Fox News. According to Frei, he promotes theories of disinformation and conspiracy on the origins of Covid-19 for political ends, thus confusing the public confusing and deceiving the public.
As a participant in the film and journalist who has spent the last five years writing a book on the origins of emerging diseases, I must respectfully be in disagreement.
Basically, controversy is not a question from left to right, but a symptom of distrust of the public deeply rooted towards science. By leading it along the political fracture – and experiencing extreme examples to adapt to its story, the documentary does not serve the public interest.
This does not want to deny that the question of the origins of the pandemic was politicized from the start. It was indeed difficult for left -wing researchers like The Lentzos Filippa Biosecurity Expert from King’s College in London to openly talk about the plausibility of laboratory leakage scenarios because they risked being perceived as Align with a right program.
However, many left-wing researchers frank-spoken like Lentzos were the main engines of theories of laboratory leakage. When looking for my book, I met many credible and respected experts on emerging diseases who also believe that the question of the COVID-19 origins is far from being installed. Their opinions are based on decades of professional expertise.
Far from a right -wing fever swamp, these researchers have lent scientific legitimacy to the debate. They are not convinced that the studies published in the main scientific journals supporting theories of natural origin are as convincing as the authors claimed it. In addition, studies are based on limited data due to the lack of transparency of China and the limited political will to investigate, which makes important uncertainties inevitable.
Few people would claim with absolute certainty of how the pandemic started. The two parties collect evidence in support of their case, but none can fully exclude the possibility put forward by the other. This lack of clarity is no different from what we see with most emerging diseases. For example, we still do not know how the devastating epidemic of Ebola in West Africa began in 2014.
The basic question behind the controversy COVID-19 Origins is fundamentally a crisis of confidence rather than a simple information problem. He reflects long -standing public anxieties regarding viruse research. Strong emotions such as fear and distrust play a crucial role in human cognition. The simple fact of presenting more facts does not always lead to a convergeent of opinions – and can sometimes even widen the gap.
Indeed, the storm of public distrust of the research on viruses had gathered long before the pandemic. In 2011, two research teams triggered the outcry By announcing the Creation of more transmitted variants of H5N1 (bird flu). This led to a break in the American federal funding for research which makes viruses more transmitted or virulent, called studies on the gain of function, and the establishment of a new regulatory framework.
However, a deep feeling of discomfort has persisted, motivated by the perception that virologists, financing agencies and research institutions had not responded sufficiently to the concerns and anxieties of the public, associated with a lack of transparency and inclusion in decision -making. The controversy COVID-19 Origins sailed directly in the middle of this storm of brewing.
Is the virus from the type of function of gain of function whose criticism had long warned? How even could the slightest possibility of this have influenced the behavior of virologists, financing agencies and research institutions – encouraging them to protect their reputation and preserve political support?
Some scientists claim that evidence supporting hypotheses of natural origin with excessive confidence and show little tolerance for dissident views. They seemed eager to close the debate, repeatedly and since the beginning of 2020. For example, when their work was published in the journal Science in 2022, they proclaimed the closed affair and Dead laboratory leakage theories. Even the researchers leaning against theories of natural origin, such as the ecologist of the Vincent Munster virus of the Rocky Mountains Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, told me that they deplored that some of their colleagues defend their theories “as a religion”.
No one embodies the crisis of confidence in science more than Peter Daszak, the former president of the Ecohealth Alliance. A series of faux pas from him contributed to fueling public distrust. Early 2020, for example, he organized a declaration By dozens of eminent scientists in Lancet, who strongly condemned the “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVVI-19 has no natural origin”, without disclosing his collaboration of almost two decades with the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a conflict of interest.
Likewise, he denies that his Own collaboration with the Wuhan laboratory involved research on the gain of function, even if Shi Zhengli – the Chinese scientist who led studies on the Coronavirus on bats – has openly recognized that Laboratory work has produced at least one genetically modified virus more virulent than its parental strain. (This work is not directly relevant for the origins of Covid-19.)
The documentary The affirmations that the attacks on Ecohealth Alliance and the spread of conspiracy theories of laboratory leak have fueled distrust of science. In reality, it is the opposite of the public towards science, fueled by the controversy of unresolved H5N1 function and by the lack of transparency and humility of scientists such as Daszak, led to skepticism and increased support for theories of laboratory leaks.
Such errors of judgment and inappropriate behavior, not rare among scientists and not limited to the debate on COVID-19 origins, can affect the way the public perceives scientists and the reliability of their complaints and how people interpret proofs.
As the specialist in social science specialists says, Benjamin Hurlbut of the Arizona State University: the problem is not an anti-science audience, but rather a scientific community that labels a skeptical audience struggling with legitimate problems of trust such as anti-science theorists or the plot.
A recent Scientific editorial declares that “scientists should better explain the scientific process and what makes it so trustworthy”. This reflects the persistent influence of the traditional “deficit model” of scientific communication, which assumes that confidence can be built by providing simple information. But the public relationship with science goes beyond understanding facts or methods.
Confidence cannot be made on demand. It must be cultivated over time thanks to transparency, responsibility, humility and the establishment of relationships. Scientists must do more to win it.
-
Jane Qiu is an independent scientific writer awarded in Beijing. The report was supported by a grant from the Pulitzer Center
-
Do you have an opinion on the questions raised in this article? If you wish to submit a response of up to 300 words per e-mail to be considered for publication in our mail Section, please Click here.