Will lab-leak theory on Covid origin be used for political attacks instead of bio-safety reforms?

By Bharat Dogra 

The debate over COVID-19’s origin refuses to die. A recent report titled "CIA Now Favours Lab Leak Theory to Explain Origins of COVID-19"—along with similar reports in The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and The Times of India (all dated late January 2025)—reveals that the CIA has now shifted its stance, favouring the lab-leak theory over the wet market hypothesis. John Ratcliffe, the newly appointed CIA Director, has long supported the lab-leak hypothesis. The announcement of this shift came shortly after Ratcliffe told Breitbart News that he no longer wanted the agency to remain “on the sidelines” of the debate.

Does this indicate a greater global focus on bio-safety, or will it merely be used to fuel stronger criticism of China? The latter possibility appears likely, given that Tom Cotton, the new Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated, “Now the most important thing is to make China pay for unleashing a plague on the world.”

It would be unfortunate if such a narrow view prevailed, as the broader issue at stake is global bio-safety. Even if the focus remains solely on the lab-leak theory, the fact remains that much of the controversial research conducted in China was funded by U.S. institutions.

The Paradox of Risky Research Funding

It is paradoxical that the research most scrutinized in the COVID origin debate involved a high-risk project in a Chinese lab funded by the United States. This created an even more complex situation where, at least initially, powerful figures on both sides had an interest in covering up inconvenient facts.

The COVID origin debate has seen a deep divide between those who emphasize natural transmission (linked to wet markets and environmental degradation) and those who argue that a lab-leak is the most plausible explanation. However, this division should not obscure the urgent need for global bio-safety reforms, regardless of the debate’s final outcome.

Environmental and Wildlife Concerns

The natural transmission theory highlights various concerns, including:

- Increasing ecological degradation, including indiscriminate deforestation

- Risky human-wildlife interactions

- Consumption of certain types of meat and animal products

- Unhealthy conditions in which some animals are bred, slaughtered, and traded

Reforms in these areas are needed not only to reduce the risk of future pandemics but also to combat climate change, protect biodiversity, improve animal welfare, and promote healthier, sustainable food systems.

Reports indicate that some meat markets in China and other countries pose serious risks. However, factory farms in the United States and Western nations—where animals and poultry are kept in highly unsanitary conditions—also contribute to bio-safety threats.

The Rising Concern Over Lab-Leaks

The alternative theory—that COVID-19 originated from a lab-leak—has gained increasing traction. Even before the pandemic, the safety and ethical implications of research on dangerous viruses—including their storage, transport, and manipulation—had been questioned.

A particularly controversial aspect is the proliferation of gain-of-function (GOF) research, which involves genetically altering viruses to make them more infectious or deadly in order to study potential future pandemics. Critics argue that the risks of such research far outweigh the potential benefits.

History has shown that bio-lab leaks are not uncommon, with previous incidents involving highly dangerous pathogens. Given the rapid expansion of high-risk labs, what is the statistical probability of a major accidental release occurring every decade—or even every five years?

Unsettling Revelations About COVID-19 Research

Concerns have grown over the possibility that COVID-19 originated from a genetically engineered coronavirus that leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). This research was part of a GOF project, allegedly aimed at preparing for future pandemics. However, critics argue that such projects significantly increase the risk of accidental outbreaks.

More worryingly, many high-risk projects, often linked to military applications, continue unabated worldwide. While some of this research is classified as GOF, other scientists refer to it as research on novel potential pandemic pathogens (PPPs).

The National Academy of Sciences' Warning

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine outlined key categories of high-risk biotechnology research in its report "Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism." These include:

- Making vaccines ineffective

- Conferring resistance to antibiotics and antiviral agents

- Increasing a pathogen’s virulence or making a non-virulent microbe virulent

- Enhancing the transmissibility of a pathogen

- Expanding a pathogen’s host range

- Enabling pathogens to evade detection

- Weaponizing biological agents

Clearly, some research projects pose an unacceptably high risk and should be discontinued altogether. Another significant concern is that such research could be exploited by terrorists, a possibility that senior scientists have also acknowledged.

The Boston University Controversy

Recent concerns over high-risk biological research were reignited by the controversy surrounding Boston University’s National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL). Reports indicate that researchers developed a new COVID-19 strain that killed 80% of infected mice in a lab setting. While NEIDL denied that the research posed serious risks, critics—including Senator Roger Marshall, a medical doctor—warned that it constituted “lethal gain-of-function virus research” with the potential to kill more people than “any single nuclear weapon.”

Adding to the controversy, Dr. Emily Erbelding of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) revealed that the Boston researchers had failed to disclose the full extent of their work in their original grant application.

Past Attempts to Regulate Dangerous Research

Concerns over GOF research have existed for years. In 2015, the U.S. government imposed a temporary moratorium on certain GOF studies, defining them as research that “improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease.” The order stated that such research posed significant bio-safety and bio-security risks.

However, the moratorium contained a loophole, allowing exemptions if research was deemed “urgently necessary to protect public health or national security.” This loophole was reportedly used to continue funding controversial research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Despite strong opposition from scientists like Dr. Mark Lipsitch and Dr. Thomas Inglesby, the moratorium was lifted in December 2017. Their research had warned that:

- Pandemic-causing experiments should be subject to rigorous risk assessment

- Accidental infections and lab leaks should be quantitatively evaluated

- Deliberate misuse of PPP research should be accounted for, including the risks of theft or intentional release

These warnings were largely ignored, leading to the continued proliferation of high-risk biological research.

A Call for Global Bio-Safety Reforms

A paper in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists previously estimated an 80% probability of a dangerous virus escaping from a lab within 12.8 years—an alarmingly high likelihood. Given this reality, the world must urgently:

- Impose stricter bio-safety regulations on all high-risk research

- Identify inherently high-risk experiments and ban them outright

- Establish a global moratorium on novel PPP research

- Create an independent international commission—excluding those with vested interests—to conduct an unbiased review of bio-safety policies

While the world may not reach a consensus on COVID-19’s origins anytime soon, global agreement on restricting high-risk research is more attainable—and absolutely essential to prevent future pandemics.

Biological weapons and warfare are officially banned, yet research in this field continues under various guises. Economic, military, and career-driven incentives have led to the unchecked expansion of dangerous research despite its potential catastrophic consequences.

Now is the time to prioritize safety over all else. The recent CIA report favouring the lab-leak theory should not be used for political attacks but as a catalyst for long-overdue global bio-safety reforms. If public concern on this issue is high, then now is the perfect moment to push for meaningful change—before it’s too late.

---

The writer is Honorary Convener, Save the Earth Now Campaign. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071