Boston University Unreported Research Creates New Variant of Coronavirus
Center for Applied Values and Ethics in Advancing Technologies, UC Santa Cruz, Crown College
Supporting Values, Ethics and Innovation to create a more just, equitable, and viable future.
Earlier this year Boston University conducted experiments on combinations of multiple different Covid strains to learn more about the main factors that make it both deadly and transmutable. This research can help us in understanding how to better combat these viruses through vaccines, however there are many other ways in which this research could create an even stronger version of the virus which would be considered gain of function research. Recently back in late 2021, federal funding for gain of function research was made illegal in the U.S. The main two strains involved in the experiment were the Omicron variant that had high infection rates throughout 2020, and the ancestral SARS-Cov-2 which can cause many of the observed symptoms that affected the lungs of many patients who passed due to Covid. The new virus created from those past viruses, Omi-S when tested on mutated mice had an 80% lethality rate. The original omicron was at 0% lethality, while the SARS was initially at 100%. My question is, is this kind of research ethical or should more control be put in place for the research of viral experiments in general?
All of these tests were held on slightly mutated mice that have the same type of ACE 2 receptors that are found in humans. Of all mammals we are the most susceptible to the virus because of these receptors, but we have more natural and vaccine induced immunities that help tremendously in reducing the effects of these viruses. One of the main concerns about this research is that it was partially funded by multiple federal and educational grants without any report of why or how the tests would be conducted. After the tests, a preprint paper for the research was published which then caused much uproar on social media because of the reported 80% “kill rate”. There are others who on the contrary believe that the data should not be blown out of proportion, as we do not yet fully understand how the virus would actually behave within humans.
My first instance hearing of this research was through a Youtube video titled, Boston Gain of Function Virus which was uploaded by Dr. John Campbell, a retired nurse educator who has followed and reported through videos his thoughts on emerging news stories about Coronavirus. He seems to stand confidently on the side that the research held at BU was an example of Gain of Function research. His arguments for this conclusion was that the lethality rate of the omicron variant increased from 0% up to 80% in the Omi-S variant. Dr. Campbell however failed to mention in his video that the SARS variant was initially at 100% lethality. Some may then quickly point out that this is actually a loss of function, however there are more worrying aspects to the results of these tests.?
The most worrying result of this test in my opinion, and the only reason I might still consider this research to be gain of function is that the newly created Omi-S variant, despite being less lethal than SARS, is better able to escape “vaccine-induced immunity”. This means that all of the vaccines we have developed to reduce transmutability and symptoms of the virus, would likely have little to no effect. This fact coupled with the fact that the Omi-S strain is 80% more lethal to these mice when compared to the original Omicron from 2020, means that this virus could potentially end up being more lethal than originally thought.?
Boston University is obviously a well established place of education and they would likely never conduct tests without taking the necessary precautions and preparations beforehand. BU reported that if any gain of function or possibility of the virus escaping the lab was detected, they would shut down the research immediately. But was the research worth the risk??
In two categories, the new Omi-S variant was strengthened. Omicron made SARS more transmissible / mutatable, and SARS made omicron more lethal. From another viewpoint, there is only one category where Omi-S was weaker, that is omicron made SARS less lethal. How this data is to be judged is not explained in any text of law, which is why the debate over whether this research was ethical or not is such a big debate. Yes we want to better understand these viruses in order to learn how we can best prevent the negative effects, but is conducting experiments where an entirely new virus is then created really the best way of going about it? I’d be surprised if it was, for BU had no solid evidence that the virus they created would be more or less dangerous. And now that this specific experiment is complete, there is no telling if this research could be used in the future, possibly by other countries who don’t have laws in place restricting gain of function research.?
To conclude my thoughts, yes, I believe that this research did achieve gain of function for the reason that both of the negative attributes, transmissibility and lethality were increased from both pre-existing viruses. Yes, Omi-S is less lethal within mice than the SARS variant, but only by 20%, whereas the omicron increased from 0% to 80%. And again the Omicron aided in making the new virus much more transmissible when compared to the transmissibility of the deadly SARS variant. Research of viruses that are as dangerous as Covid need to be reported on, and outlined before tests are held. Yes Boston University took all proper precautions to ensure the virus wouldn’t escape, but because there can never be 100% certainty that it wouldn’t escape, this makes the risk of this experiment for me too extreme for this kind of research to continue.?
Sources
Preprint of the study
领英推荐
“The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity”
Boston University Refuting the claims for Gain of Function
Reuters Fact Checking for the issue
Dr. Campbell’s thoughts on the research
Discussion of whether Boston University should have reported their experiment outlines beforehand.