EDITORIAL
SCIENCE science.org 12 NOVEMBER 2021 • VOL 374 ISSUE 6569 793PHOTO: CAMERON DAVIDSON
I
t has been a rough couple of weeks for scientific
public relations regarding COVID-19. Missteps
by researchers and funding agencies around the
origins of severe acute respiratory syndrome
coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have provided fod-
der for conspiracy theorists, and caveats about the
children’s vaccine have provided more ammo for
anti-vaxxers. None of these miscues say anything sub-
stantive about the science and the conclusion that the
virus is almost certainly of zoonotic origin and that
the vaccine is safe for children. But clumsy behavior
is more eye-catching than the details of research, es-
pecially when scientists are so often held to unreal-
istic standards, expected to be both experts in their
fields and skilled communicators.
The latest round of foibles on the
origin of SARS-CoV-2 began with
the release of an unfunded grant
proposal that was submitted in
2018 to the US Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency by the
nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. The
proposal featured EcoHealth’s presi-
dent, Peter Daszak, as the principal
investigator, and several coronavi-
rus researchers from the University
of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel
Hill, the Wuhan Institute of Virol-
ogy, and Duke–National University
of Singapore Medical School. It de-
scribed experiments to introduce
proteolytic cleavage sites into SARS-
like coronaviruses. Such a site in SARS-CoV-2 (cleaved
by furin) enables the virus to efficiently infect human
cells. How the furin cleavage site wound up in the vi-
rus is a focus of debate over the origins of the pan-
demic. Never mind that the experiments, which hardly
posed a threat, were not conducted and were proposed
by UNC scientists. The researchers failed to get ahead
of the story. They should have known that the proposal
would arouse interest, especially because the collabo-
rators included scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Vi-
rology and US scientists. When the rejected proposal
was “leaked,” it looked like the scientists were hiding
something. This misstep has nothing to do with SARS-
CoV-2’s origin, but it nevertheless looked suspicious.
Another misstep occurred when the US National
Institutes of Health (NIH) sent a letter to Congress
chastising EcoHealth for failing to promptly report
an “unexpected result” in which a bat coronavirus be-
came more infectious than anticipated in laboratorymice. Nothing about this experiment suggests that the
new virus could have become SARS-CoV-2, but the as-
sertion that EcoHealth was late in submitting a report
that it knew would be explosive again struck detractors
as suspicious. EcoHealth stumbled yet again when ear-
lier this fall a spokesman incorrectly said that the orga-
nization had not modified a different coronavirus (one
that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome) and then
walked back the statement, needlessly provoking suspi-
cion among antiscience forces. Matters were not helped
when NIH Director Francis Collins appeared on CNN
and struggled to answer questions without seeming to
contradict himself. He blamed EcoHealth for not com-
plying with the grant but also said that the experiments
didn’t meet the standard of problem-
atic gain-of-function research and
that NIH didn’t fail in monitoring.
Collins’s performance is understand-
able: There are details here that are
hard to explain in a cable news hit.
Miscues like these are not limited
to SARS-CoV-2 origins. Last month,
when the Vaccines and Related Bio-
logical Products Advisory Committee
met to advise the US Food and Drug
Administration on the Pfizer vaccine
for children ages 5 to 11, one mem-
ber abstained and issued a statement
implying that the vaccine was inad-
equately tested and marginally effec-
tive—another scrap to be exploited
by anti-vaxxers. Once more, by seem-
ing to contradict themselves, scientists look like they
can’t get their stories straight and are hiding facts.
These events raise questions about the responsibili-
ties of scientists. These miscues could be honest mis-
takes or simply people disagreeing. Should scientists be
expected to be perfect at communicating and coordinat-
ing messages? Scientists have consistently put forward
a picture of themselves as highly objective automatons
governed solely by their data, when in reality, science
is a messy, human process subject to all features of hu-
man frailty. Scientists are expected to balance this real-
ity with the fact that their every word and action, when
it comes to the pandemic, is under intense scrutiny.
It may seem unfair that scientists are being held to
such a high standard. But that is where we find ourselves
right now. So, let’s strive to be much more thoughtful,
because ineptness can cut deep and damaging wounds.–H. Holden ThorpSelf-inflicted wounds
H. Holden Thorp
Editor-in-Chief,
Science journals.
[email protected];
@hholdenthorp10.1126/science.abn“... science
is a messy,
human process
subject to all
features of
human frailty.”