Originally published October 16, 2023 9:18 am PDT
The debate surrounding the origins of COVID-19 has seen a growing skepticism towards virus research abroad, especially those involving the manipulation of viruses.
Amid the heightened discourse, the United States Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D.) announced an ambitious $125 million initiative known as DEEP VZN, according to a report from The New York Times.
This project was to partner with global labs to gather unknown animal viruses that could be potential pandemic triggers.
The scientists associated, however, made it clear that their research would neither be in China nor involve controversial gain-of-function experiments.
A DEEP VZN biosafety plan detailed measures like medical screenings for field workers and periodic audits by biosafety experts.
Despite these assurances, concerns arose from Capitol Hill.
Senators Jim Risch of Idaho and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, both key Republicans, voiced apprehensions, primarily based on past federal funding for research in China.
They sought clarity on the endeavor and, later, explicitly asked U.S.A.I.D. to “immediately cease all work” on DEEP VZN in a 2022 letter.
Given these concerns, scientists, largely from Washington State University, revised their approach.
As one of the researchers revealed, they limited the research to fewer countries, committed to neutralizing viruses in the field, and decided to focus mainly on domestic animals that had already had human contact.
U.S.A.I.D. tried to address concerns through multiple briefings with Senate staff, but these efforts were deemed insufficient by both the project’s critics and some scientists.
Eventually, funding for the DEEP VZN initiative was withdrawn, with news of this decision first being reported by the medical journal, The BMJ (British Medical Journal).
This financial withdrawal had significant implications, especially in developing countries.
“We were planning to bring these labs up to the highest safety standards,” lamented Pablo Tsukayama, a Peruvian microbiologist, who had to let go of scientists and suspend plans to upgrade laboratory equipment.
He emphasized, “That’s why the U.S. funding was key.”
This increased scrutiny and the mounting debate over ‘gain-of-function’ research have generated concerns in the scientific community.
While many agree that the federal vetting process is opaque and time-consuming, the perceived slowdown is attributed to a surge in virology proposals due to the pandemic by Dr. Erbelding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Several virologists have expressed reservations about pursuing certain research lines due to anticipated delays and administrative hurdles.
As Anice Lowen, an influenza virologist at Emory University, pointed out, “Scientists are backing away from certain lines of research just in anticipation of the delays and paperwork.”
She further noted, “A lot of parties are becoming more conservative.”
The ramifications of these developments are twofold.
While some hail the intensified oversight as a much-needed check, others argue it could push crucial research to countries with laxer biosafety norms.
There’s also a fear that it could hamper the understanding of the coronavirus.
One of the leading researchers, Dr. Sutton, encapsulated the predicament, stating, “The cost of dealing with the regulations is too high,” before conceding, “I stopped dreaming up those kinds of experiments.”
