In the last twenty years, efforts to prepare for pandemics have been largely ineffective, seemingly failing when actually needed.
The National Institutes of Health invested significantly but fell short during the coronavirus outbreak, possibly even contributing to its emergence.
The ambitious Pandemic Preparedness Handbook outlines three essential steps for addressing potential threats.
First, researchers are dispatched to some of the most remote spots, like bat caves in China, to catalog pathogens. Wild animal samples are then transported to urban labs, including those in Wuhan.
Next, the goal is to evaluate each pathogen’s risk level by assessing its capacity to penetrate human cells. Sometimes, this involves genetic modifications to enhance its potential for infection.
This procedure is what’s known today as risky gain-of-function research.
The intention here is to estimate how likely it is that a pathogen could mutate in a harmful way to humans.
Finally, preventative vaccines and treatments are developed for those few pathogens that seem most dangerous before they can infect humans.
This crucial step considers forging large contracts with pharmaceutical companies to ensure countermeasures are created and stockpiled.
However, each part of this approach is fraught with risks.
Sending scientists into vulnerable ecosystems to collect pathogens poses the danger of introducing threats that wouldn’t have arisen otherwise.
Even outside of GOF research, lab work is risky. Despite precautions, the potential for accidental pathogen release remains.
Indeed, incidents of breaches occur frequently, and global biosafety oversight lacks consistency, putting pathogens in unsecured settings.
While an executive order from President Trump aimed to put strict controls on dangerous gain-of-function projects could potentially rectify some issues, achieving this requires a collective commitment from scientists worldwide.
It’s vital for researchers to cultivate a mindset that rigorously weighs the pros and cons of their experiments, regardless of GOF classification.
From an evolutionary and historical standpoint, this strategy appears flawed. Treatments designed to handle a threat aren’t tested on humans until outbreaks happen.
Typically, the pathogen that leads to an outbreak is quite different from those collected for treatment development.
It’s safe to say that pathogens capable of causing outbreaks are unpredictable.
This leaves us with costly but poorly prepared countermeasures.
They create a false sense of safety and empower those who advocate for measures like lockdowns and mandates.
The coronavirus pandemic highlighted the failure of these methods, resulting in harm to the public and eroding trust in health authorities.
This strategy further fosters vested interests, incentivizing overreactions to emerging threats.
It also cultivates a cohort of well-funded scientists benefiting from public anxiety while downplaying the risk of lab accidents.
These researchers profit from adhering to outdated pandemic preparedness strategies, which presents a serious conflict of interest.
The approach could create a sector of vaccine and drug manufacturers, who would get large sums from the government to produce stockpiles of untested medicines.
So, what steps should we take knowing that future pandemics are inevitable?
We need to move away from traditional, wasteful preparedness strategies. There’s no need to identify or engineer new pathogens that might incite outbreaks.
Instead, it’s crucial to deepen our understanding of known pathogens that already affect humans, focusing on real threats rather than hypothetical scenarios.
Improving prevention and treatment methods for these established pathogens should be our priority.
To better our chances, we should draw lessons from recent experiences. Individuals who maintain good metabolic health, stay active, and consume nutritious foods are much more resilient to new infections compared to those with chronic health issues.
Looking at Sweden’s approach—without imposing lockdowns or school closures—it managed to protect lives effectively during the pandemic. From March 2020 to December 2024, their age-adjusted excess death rates were among the lowest globally.
This success was partly due to the general health of the population.
Ultimately, health organizations promoting lifestyle improvements—like quitting smoking, managing conditions like high blood pressure and diabetes, or just encouraging more movement—can make a significant difference for future pandemic preparedness.
