Boston University refutes report that lab created dangerous strain of COVID
Boston University refutes report that lab created dangerous COVID strain 03:02
The National Institutes of Health is now examining whether experiments at Boston University should have triggered a federal review, the agency says, after scientists at the school tested strains they created of the virus by combining the ancestral and Omicron variants.
Federal health authorities say they are investigating whether scientists should have sought their permission before undertaking research that could lead to a “gain of function” in the virus by achieving new or improved capabilities, which may be ” inherently risky”.
And locally, a spokesperson for the Boston Public Health Commission says it is now reviewing the study scientists’ application materials “to confirm that the research was conducted in accordance with protocols and that were properly supervised.”
The commission approved a proposed research protocol submitted by the scientists in March 2020, the spokesperson said.
However, Boston University says its research followed “all necessary regulatory obligations and protocols” to safely experiment with viruses.
“Before anything is done to the [National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories]it goes through multiple layers of careful safety review and that’s done through committees that are part of Boston University and also committees that are outside, independent of, BU,” Robert Davey, a professor at the National Laboratories for Disease Boston University’s Emerging Infectious Diseases said in a statement.
Scientists were studying what role the highly mutated tip protein of the Omicron variant might play in its generally milder severity compared to previous waves.
The mice were exposed to “recombinant chimeric” versions created by the scientists, which carried the spike protein of the Omicron variant combined with the “backbone” of the original strain. Similar types of recombinant variants have evolved in nature.
Their findings were published Friday as a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed. The NIH scrutiny was first reported by Stat News.
Although NIH money was not directly sought for the experiments, the agency is investigating whether it still might have been subject to its grant policy.
The experiments may also have required clearance first from federal government rules governing experiments that could lead to a “gain of function” in the virus, the NIH said. This type of research is supposed to be evaluated by a panel of experts convened by the federal government before it can be funded.
However, Boston University says it “had no obligation to disclose this research” to the NIH.
While funding from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was acknowledged by the scientists in their paper, Boston University said the grants were only for “tools and platforms” used by the scientists .
“NIAID funding was acknowledged because it was used to help develop the tools and platforms that were used in this research; they did not directly fund this research. NIH funding for an instrumentation grant was also acknowledged shared that helped support pathology studies,” Rachel. Lapal Cavallario, a university spokesman, said in a statement.
News of the NIH probe follows coverage of the Boston University research first in the Daily Mail. The university had denounced the tabloid for sensationalizing its research, with “false and inaccurate” reports that took its findings out of context.
For example, early reports on the findings noted that 80% of the infected mice died after the scientists infected the animals with the recombinant strain, while none died after being exposed to the Omicron variant .
The university notes that the original variant killed 100 percent of the mice, meaning its recombinant virus was effectively made “less dangerous.”
If there were signs that the viruses they created for their experiments were “gaining function,” the scientists would have stopped “immediately” and reported their research, Lapal Cavallario said.
The research was also conducted in the university’s “BSL-3” laboratory. This is the second-highest level of precautions scientists can take when studying viruses, below those taken to study the most dangerous pathogens “for which no vaccine or therapy is available.”
“We take our safety and security seriously in how we handle pathogens, and the virus does not leave the lab where it is being studied,” Ronald Corley, director of Boston University’s NEIDL, said in a statement.
The study’s lead author, Mohsan Saeed, and other experts have cited other research that has conducted similar types of experiments without controversy.
A co-authored study over the summer by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration also generated “chimeric viruses” with Omicron and the ancestral strains to test in mice.
“In this case, we are interested in understanding viral genes or factors or mutations that attenuate SARS-CoV-2 so that we can use the knowledge to design live attenuated viral vaccines,” FDA spokeswoman Abby Capobianco said in a statement.
The FDA’s internal research review boards approved the work, Capobianco said. The work was deemed not to be so-called “P3CO” research, which would have triggered a review before experiments that could “create, transfer or use” potential enhanced pandemic pathogens (ePPP).
The Boston University preprint comes amid scrutiny of the federal government’s policies governing ePPP research, which are in the midst of a review by an NIH task force.
“It is troubling that this research, like the research in Wuhan that may have caused the pandemic, was not identified by the funding agency as potential ePPP research,” Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright wrote on Twitter.
Ebright and others also questioned the university’s claim that the research was not a “gain-of-function” experiment.
“First of all, these are certainly gain-of-function experiments. As many have pointed out, this is a very broad term that includes many harmless experiments and some potentially dangerous ones,” Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard University and an key of the Disease Centers. Control and Prevention’s forecasting arm said on Twitter on Wednesday.
More Alexander Tin
CBS News reporter covering public health and the pandemic.