-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
More than six years after a novel coronavirus spread to the United States, our nation’s leaders are still locked in a partisan cage-match over the origin of the pathogen. The neverending cycle of recriminations and scapegoating is a waste of time and money — and worse yet, it undermines everyone’s common goal of preventing future waves of mass death, lockdowns and school closures.
I’m a physician and epidemiologist who spent nearly a decade investigating epidemics around the world for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The truth about outbreaks of new or rare diseases is that they’re exceptionally difficult to trace back to a single point of origin. For example, 50 years since the discovery of the Ebola virus, scientists still don’t fully understand in what wild animal species it hides between outbreaks. We’ll probably never know, with absolute certainty, whether COVID-19 was the result of a “lab leak” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology or transmitted from infected animals to humans at one of the city’s wet markets.
While I’d love to know the “true” answer, it doesn’t change how we ought to move forward. I strongly favor the wet-market hypothesis based on available peer-reviewed evidence. There’s a strong case against a lab-associated origin, but I cannot definitively rule it out. Regardless, both explanations highlight growing global biosecurity issues. A responsible government would adopt strong policies on both fronts — strengthening safety standards for laboratory research involving dangerous pathogens and cracking down on the commercial wildlife trade — rather than ignoring either well-documented threat for the sake of political convenience. Even if we knew one of those were responsible for the last pandemic, the other could cause the next one.
Around the world, there are more than 50 “Biosafety Level 4” laboratories, built to house the world’s scariest pathogens. The world would be a lot more dangerous without research into these germs, and the labs employ strict biocontainment protocols to mitigate the risks of working with them: spacesuit-like personal protective equipment, lengthy decontamination procedures, specialized air-handling systems and more.
But lapses happen, and they can pose threats to public health. Since the 1970s, serious lab-associated human infections have occasionally occurred involving pathogens such as the bacteria that cause anthrax and brucellosis and the smallpox virus. As the threat of infectious diseases grows in today’s interconnected world, including from bad actors who could use artificial intelligence to do real harm, there is a greater need than ever to keep doing critical scientific research to develop countermeasures (such as vaccines) against microbial threats while also creating an international set of standards to minimize any potential risks of such research. Research funders should require adherence to these standards, and academic journals should demand it as a condition for publication.
We also have to recognize that science gone wrong makes for dramatic storytelling (as in my favorite zombie apocalypse movie, “28 Days Later,” plus many others), but the far more common origin of pandemics is a process known as zoonotic spillover, whereby pathogens jump from animals to humans. Every modern viral pandemic prior to COVID-19 originated this way. Scientists believe there are thousands of yet-to-be-discovered viruses currently circulating in birds and mammals that could one day also make the leap into humans.
Unlike lab leaks, which can often be blamed on the mistakes — or deliberate actions — of individuals, the culpability around spillovers is far more diffuse. We’re all responsible in some way: Spillovers are becoming more frequent because of humanity’s relentless exploitation of animals and nature, including through deforestation, industrial agriculture and the global wildlife trade. The so-called natural origin theory of COVID-19 — an ironic name, given that there is nothing natural about caging wild animals in crowded conditions, where they literally defecate and urinate on top of each other, spreading any pathogens they carry — is a reminder that cracking down on the importation and sale of wildlife would go a long way in preventing the next pandemic.
Every year, millions of live wild animals are shipped around the world, largely to meet growing demand for exotic cuisines and unique pets, and they can carry diseases across borders. In 2002, for example, SARS — a coronavirus cousin of COVID-19 with a 10% fatality rate — infected more than 8,000 people on five continents. It originated in bats, made its way into wild animals sold in markets and then spread to humans in Guangdong Province, China.
This problem, however, is not unique to East Asia. The United States ranks among the world’s top importers of wildlife. Over the past 20 years, nearly 3 billion wild animals have been legally shipped into the country — but “legal” does not mean “safe.” The stressful conditions that are common in the trade — including malnutrition, poor hygiene, overcrowding and unnatural mixing of species — create ideal conditions for viruses to circulate, mutate and spill over into new hosts. Even legal imports are rarely screened for disease; in many instances, exporters and importers are allowed to self-attest the health of their animals. The wildlife trade is like allowing a dangerous genetic experiment to take place in strip malls and living rooms, without any meaningful oversight or regulation.
American health officials are aware of this threat. In 2003, for example, more than 70 cases of a mysterious smallpox-like illness appeared across the Midwest. The cause was eventually traced back to rats and other critters from Ghana, some of which harbored the virus that causes mpox, which had been imported to meet demand for unique pets. In response, the U.S. government banned the importation of African rodents — and then did little else. It’s long past time for our officials to end our open-border policy for wildlife, limiting imports to a short list of species that pose minimal risk to public health, while prohibiting sales of all others.
The incessant bickering over the origins of COVID-19 hasn’t made anyone safer; in fact, our ability to respond to a pandemic today is probably worse than it was seven years ago, because we are more polarized than ever and elected officials have undermined institutions. Healthcare workers are traumatized and burned out. Our research capacity has declined, and public health experts have been pushed out of federal agencies.
Whatever the precise cause of the last pandemic, this much is true: Humanity enabled it. We also have the power to stop the next one — but we cannot do so through fighting. Pathogens don’t care about politics.
Neil Vora, a physician, is the executive director of the Preventing Pandemics at the Source coalition.
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article contends that years of partisan fighting over whether COVID-19 began with a lab leak or animal spillover are a waste of time and money that undermines the shared goal of preventing the next pandemic, especially because definitive proof of the virus’s origin may never be found.
- It explains that peer-reviewed evidence makes a wet-market zoonotic origin more likely and presents a strong case against a lab-associated origin, yet stresses that a lab leak cannot be conclusively ruled out and that both scenarios expose serious gaps in global biosecurity.
- The piece argues that responsible governments should simultaneously strengthen safety standards for high-risk laboratory research and crack down on the commercial wildlife trade, warning that focusing on only one of these threats for political reasons ignores how either pathway could trigger a future pandemic.
- It describes the proliferation of Biosafety Level 4 laboratories handling the world’s most dangerous pathogens and notes that, despite stringent protocols, past lab-associated infections with agents such as anthrax, brucellosis, and smallpox show that accidents happen, so funders and journals should require compliance with robust, internationally agreed biosafety standards.
- The article emphasizes that the predominant route for modern viral pandemics has been zoonotic spillover from animals to humans, driven by deforestation, industrial agriculture, and intensive exploitation of wildlife, and argues that changing how societies interact with nature is therefore central to pandemic prevention.
- It highlights the global trade in live wild animals for exotic food and pets, noting that millions of animals are shipped annually in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions with little disease screening, and points out that the United States is among the world’s largest wildlife importers, receiving nearly 3 billion animals over two decades under a system that often relies on self-attested health claims.
- Drawing on the 2003 mpox outbreak linked to imported African rodents and pet dealers, the piece criticizes narrow, reactive responses and urges replacing what it describes as an “open-border” approach to wildlife with a precautionary system that allows only a short, vetted list of low-risk species while barring imports and sales of all others.
- The article warns that polarization, attacks on public health institutions, burnout among healthcare workers, and the loss of scientific expertise from federal agencies have left the United States less prepared for pandemics than before COVID-19 and concludes that reducing political conflict over origins and focusing instead on structural drivers of emerging diseases is essential to avert future mass illness and disruption.
Different views on the topic
- In contrast to the article’s argument that pinning down COVID-19’s origin would not change how to move forward, a perspective published in the New England Journal of Medicine contends that determining whether the virus arose from natural spillover, an accidental lab incident, or deliberate misuse is crucial because each pathway points to different, specific reforms in wildlife regulation, biosafety oversight, and global surveillance, and because clarity is vital for public trust and international accountability.[7]
- The same medical commentary maintains that, although current scientific evidence most strongly supports natural zoonotic emergence, understanding the precise chain of events leading to SARS-CoV-2 is indispensable for designing targeted safeguards for laboratories and for ensuring responsible conduct of high-risk pathogen research, rather than treating origins as a largely symbolic or political issue.[7]
- Reporting on U.S. intelligence assessments describes a divided government view in which some agencies, including the Department of Energy, the FBI, and later the CIA, lean toward a laboratory incident while others favor a market-based spillover, and officials involved in these reviews argue that continued investigation of origins remains a legitimate scientific and national security priority rather than merely a partisan “cage match.”[1][7][9]
- Public opinion polling by The Washington Post, YouGov, and Morning Consult shows that a majority or near-majority of Americans believe COVID-19 likely originated from a Chinese lab and that many support congressional investigations into the virus’s origins, suggesting that large segments of the public see the lab-leak question as central to assigning responsibility and shaping future biosecurity policy, not as a distraction from preparedness.[2][3][6]
- A House of Representatives panel’s final report, summarized in Science, concludes that the pandemic most likely began with a lab leak in Wuhan and uses this finding to criticize U.S. science agencies over funding and oversight of gain-of-function experiments, arguing that rigorous, origin-focused inquiries are needed to uncover past mistakes, reform research programs, and deter future laboratory catastrophes.[8][4]
- An official White House position paper released under the Trump administration asserts that “a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely origin of COVID-19,” claims that key viral features are unlikely to have arisen in nature, and argues that, if a natural origin existed, clear evidence in animals would already have been found—using this conclusion to press for sweeping restrictions on gain-of-function work and far stricter oversight of high-containment labs.[11]
- Polling analyses from Morning Consult and related commentary highlight deep partisan divides over COVID-19’s origin, with Republicans far more likely than Democrats to endorse the lab-leak theory and to view it as intentional, and these reports note that, for many respondents, pursuing lab-leak investigations is intertwined with broader debates over trust in scientific and health institutions, rather than simply detracting from efforts to strengthen public health infrastructure.[2][5][6]
- At the same time, some scientists and commentators who still view a wildlife-market spillover as the best-supported explanation argue that early, categorical dismissal of the lab-leak hypothesis harmed credibility and that only a transparent, methodical investigation of all plausible origins can refine biosafety rules and address public skepticism that might otherwise fuel misinformation and conspiracy thinking.[1][7][10]