NIH to Continue Virus Research Despite Trump’s Order
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is set to persist in developing a new pandemic virus, even as it faces pushback from a presidential executive order signed by Donald Trump, aiming to rein in research efforts. This information comes from three government sources speaking anonymously to avoid potential repercussions.
A group of biosafety experts is working alongside officials from the NIH, the Pentagon, and the Department of Homeland Security. They have finalized Trump’s directives concerning research into dangerous gain-of-function (GOF) studies. A federal policy regarding GOF research is expected by September 2. Additionally, three intelligence agencies have determined that a lab accident was responsible for the spread of Covid-19.
Jerry Parker, the former head of pandemic response at the White House, played a significant role in creating the NIH’s gain-of-function policy prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. Parker, however, resigned from his position in July after a short stint of six months, citing personal reasons rather than professional issues.
Sources indicate that the NIH is experiencing inertia in its operations. Ed Hammond, who previously monitored biodefense efforts under Anthony Fauci, was dismissed from the NIH in August. Although he gave no further comments beyond a tweet announcing his departure, his history with the agency drew attention.
Meanwhile, Bhattacharya has called attention to what he’s termed the “Crisis of Functional Research’s Benefits” as one of his top concerns, although he claims he’s not involved in GOF policy yet. NIH spokesperson Matthew Memory declined to comment on these matters.
In April, Bhattacharya promoted Jeffrey Torvenberger, who succeeded Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). According to NIH statements, Taubenberger, who collaborated with Fauci on GOF matters, will head the reform efforts at NIAID. “Director Bhattacharya is entirely confident in Dr. Taubenberger’s ability to lead these reforms,” officials stated.
Taubenberger has long advocated for GOF research, which might conflict with the pressure for restrictions. He is well-known for reviving the genome of the 1918 flu, which caused millions of deaths worldwide. While there were no lab leaks related to the 1918 flu, details about how to recreate the virus have circulated globally, raising concerns.
Despite directing inquiries to the White House office on Science and Technology Policy, the NIH oversees the largest portfolio of GOF research. Taubenberger did not respond to requests for comments.
Bhattacharya mentioned that past relationships shouldn’t dictate future directions. He also highlighted that Trump’s recent executive order imposed a 120-day deadline for updating GOF policies.
While an earlier draft of Trump’s order intended to entirely ban risky GOF research, Parker encountered significant obstacles from the NIH while drafting the final version. It’s unclear why the executive order wasn’t as stringent as initially envisioned.
Some top health officials, however, portrayed the executive directive as a necessary ban that was, in essence, historic in ending previously perpetuated GOF research funding.
Bhattacharya argued that the ongoing research doesn’t effectively shield against pandemics and that nations engaged in such research might place global populations at risk, as witnessed during the recent pandemic.
Government sources indicated that adherence to the executive order has already diminished, creating confusion within various agencies. The approach differs across institutions, leaving room for potential loopholes.
Currently, there are worries about maintaining former policies that allowed for pandemic research to take place outside the US, particularly in Wuhan. The NIH continues with risk assessments for such projects without external audits to evaluate the integrity of its reports.
Amid these discussions, NIH contractor Alex Washburn highlighted the importance of continuing GOF research to align with similar efforts from rival nations like China, especially in light of concerns about Covid’s origins.
Additionally, internal communications revealed Washburn’s priority of opposing Trump rather than addressing pandemic pathogens, a stance he reported taking earlier this year.
There’s an emerging alliance in Washburn and Taubenberger concerning the GOF research’s necessity for security purposes, although opinions vary. Some experts argue against the need for interaction with high-risk viruses for research, terming such actions as unnecessary and even reckless.
NIH officials had previously failed to report crucial GOF research projects, raising alarms about their transparency and commitment to safety. A recent tally of projects brought to light that some critical studies, including high-risk virology, were not flagged for review.
As investigations continue into collaborations with controversial research facilities, there remains significant scrutiny over NIH’s current and future policies regarding gain-of-function studies.
