676 15 FEBRUARY 2019 • VOL 363 ISSUE 6428 sciencemag.org SCIENCEPHOTO: MARTIN ENSERINK/SCIENCEC
ontroversial lab studies that modify
bird flu viruses in ways that could
make them more risky to humans
will soon resume after being on hold
for more than 4 years. Science has
learned that last year, a U.S. govern-
ment review panel quietly approved two
projects previously considered so danger-
ous that federal officials had imposed an
unusual moratorium on the research.One project already has funding from
the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s)
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID) and will start in a few
weeks; the other is awaiting funding.
The outcome marks the latest twist in
a nearly decadelong debate over the risks
and benefits of studies that aim to make
pathogens more potent or more likely to
spread in order to better understand them
and prepare defenses. And it represents
the first test of a new federal review pro-
cess intended to ensure that government
funding flows to such studies only when
they are scientifically and ethically justifi-
able and done under strict safety rules.
The researcher leading one of the ap-
proved studies says he’s looking forward
to resuming the work. “We are glad theUnited States government weighed the
risks and benefits. ... We know that [the
research] does carry risks. We also be-
lieve it is important work to protect hu-
man health,” says Yoshihiro Kawaoka of
the University of Wisconsin in Madison
and the University of Tokyo. He learned on
10 January that NIH had funded his pro-
posal. The other group that won approval,
but has not yet received funding, is led by
Ron Fouchier at Erasmus Medical Center
in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Some other researchers are sharply
critical of the approvals, saying the review
lacked transparency. After a long public dis-
cussion to develop new standards that “con-
sumed countless weeks and months of time
for many scientists, we are now being asked
to trust a completely opaque process,” says
Harvard University epidemiologist Marc
Lipsitch, who helped lead a push to require
the reviews.
In 2011, Fouchier and Kawaoka alarmed
the world by revealing they had each modi-
fied the H5N1 influenza virus, which kills
birds, so that it could spread between fer-
rets, a model for studying flu in people.
Advocates say such gain of function (GOF)
studies help experts plan for pandemics.
But the work also raised fears that the
souped-up virus could jump to humans.
Critics warned it could escape from a lab
or be weaponized. After a debate about
whether the studies should be published
(they were), and a voluntary moratorium on
such experiments, the two labs resumed the
work in 2013 under new U.S. rules.
In 2014, however, controversy flared
anew after these two labs and others pub-
lished GOF studies for H5N1 and other po-
tent bird flu strains and U.S. government
laboratories working with pathogens had
several accidents. In October 2014, U.S.
officials announced an unprecedented
“pause” on funding for 18 GOF studies of
viruses that cause influenza, Middle East
respiratory syndrome, or severe acute re-
spiratory syndrome. (They later allowed
about half to continue.)
In December 2017, U.S. officials lifted the
funding pause, but many studies remained
on hold. To resume, they had to comply withControversial flu studies can
resume, U.S. panel says
Critics complain of lack of transparency in decision that
allows efforts to create potentially risky virus strains
INFECTIOUS DISEASESBy Jocelyn KaiserDabbar says the policy is more flexible
than the memos indicate. Although the
December memo declares that DOE grant-
ees would be barred “from using U.S. tax
dollars to conduct international research
collaborations or support sensitive coun-
try foreign nationals” working on certain
kinds of research, Dabbar told Science,
“That is not the case.”
Asked whether the memo had incor-
rectly characterized the pending policy,
Dabbar replied, “Yeah, yeah. The reality is
that the implementation of specifics has
not been finalized, and that there is flex-
ibility for exceptions, even within a par-
ticular [research] area.”
Exactly which nations will appear on
the so-called risk matrix the department
is preparing is unclear. DOE already iden-
tifies some 30 countries as “sensitive” for
travel and security purposes. The list in-
cludes U.S. allies such as Israel and India,
but also nations deemed “terrorist” states,
including North Korea and Iran. Dabbar
suggested the risk matrix might include
fewer countries and that the number of
proscribed foreign-talent recruitment pro-
grams could be even smaller.
“I can tell you some of the countries
that aren’t on [the list],” Dabbar added,
citing Canada, Germany, Australia, and
the United Kingdom. “This is not target-
ing countries that we work with all the
time and who are not looking to appropri-
ate our technology,” he says. He also noted
that the Department of Defense has iden-
tified just four countries—China, Russia,
Iran, and North Korea—as especially sensi-
tive competitors.
Last week, Dabbar met with research ad-
ministrators at several major universities
to outline and answer questions about the
new policies. “We don’t want to implement
this without engaging the universities,”
he says.
One university lobbyist who requested
anonymity admitted that some institu-
tions are not aware of every international
collaboration involving faculty members,
and said full disclosure is essential. But
another university lobbyist noted that the
new policies appear to clash with two core
academic principles: giving students un-
fettered access to research opportunities
and avoiding distinctions based on na-
tional origin. Barring professors from DOE
grants would violate the first principle,
and preventing faculty from working with
scientists from a particular country would
undermine the second.
University leaders and lab directors are
now waiting anxiously to learn more from
DOE. One lobbyist says: “This is a pretty
big deal.” j
Yoshihiro Kawaoka (left) and Ron Fouchier (right) in
2012, after their flu research sparked controversy.NEWS | IN DEPTH
Published by AAASon February 14, 2019^http://science.sciencemag.org/Downloaded from