Viewpoint: Hunting for Fauci escalates as the next hazard emerges
In a day-long questioning session, Dr. Anthony Fauci, a former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a previous chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden on Covid-19, was subjected to intense scrutiny by the Republican majority in a House subcommittee. This hearing followed a previous two-day closed-door testimony in January.
The subcommittee's stated objective was to revisit Fauci's role in the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, rather than conducting a traditional after-action review to learn from the experience for future public health crises. The subcommittee chair, Dr. Brad Wenstrup, who is a podiatrist, emphasized the intention of reviewing Fauci's involvement in promoting specific narratives regarding the origins of Covid-19.
For over three hours, Republicans focused on tying U.S. support of research initiated during the Obama administration to the 2019 Covid-19 pandemic. Fauci faced numerous queries suggesting a potentially nefarious role played by the U.S. or Fauci himself. The ambiguous origin of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) presents an opportunity for political gains among conflicting theories.
The debate centers around two perspectives: one viewing the pandemic as a natural phenomenon resulting from animal-to-human gene swapping, and another that regards the virus as a man-made creation. The first camp, including myself, believes the virus is the result of a random occurrence involving standard gene-switching between animals and humans.
The second camp, which has gained recent attention due to its dramatic narrative, suggests SARS-CoV-2 is a man-made construct created by malicious parties. This assertion has two sub-versions: one where the "bad guys" (supposedly the Chinese) intentionally developed the virus for nefarious purposes, and the other where U.S. funding unwittingly aided the process.
The hearing focused on linking the pandemic's origins to a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant given to the New York-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, who then allocated those funds to the Wuhan lab for studying coronaviruses in bats. Although no one disputes that this happened, genetic fingerprint evidence adds another layer of intrigue.
Republicans remained persistent in establishing a connection between the pandemic's origin and the U.S.-funded Wuhan work, believing this funding may have inadvertently or intentionally led to the creation of the pandemic virus. Fauci responded by explaining that this was "molecularly impossible," citing the significant difference between the genetic fingerprint of the Chinese bat coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2. He also acknowledged that it's possible that other scientists within the Wuhan lab, with different funding sources, may have conducted experiments on other coronavirus strains, but he was unable to link this to the U.S., the NIH, or himself.
The definition of "gain of function" research has been a subject of debate, with different interpretations. In a strict regulatory sense, it refers to experimental manipulation of a virus or bacteria or plant or animal, which could halt all research if subjected to heavily restrictive regulation.
Fauci justified that the Wuhan work did not constitute "gain of function" research by stating that the genetic fingerprint of the Chinese bat coronavirus was significantly different from SARS-CoV-2, making the idea of a sinister trial-and-error process unlikely. Nonetheless, it's important to note that other scientists working independently in Wuhan with separate funding might have created the pandemic using different Coronavirus strains. While Fauci remains open-minded about the pandemic's origins, he maintains that there's no way to connect this to the U.S., the NIH, or himself.
The House subcommittee's 15-month probe into numerous emails and documents led to some questionable behavior from two scientists - Dr. David Morens and Dr. Peter Daszak. While associated with Fauci, Morens worked on academic projects, and Daszak, a colleague of Morens, headed EcoHealth Alliance and collaborated with the Wuhan lab. At this point, it's thought that they utilized private email for government tasks, flouting policy, and possibly cooked up evasive measures like deleting messages. However, these actions don't connect to the US funds, the NIH-backed research, or Fauci.
Morens and Daszak may face more investigations, which might generate more headlines. Meanwhile, the committee seems content to focus on emails and not work on ensuring the general public's safety.
If the subcommittee were dedicated to enhancing the government's pandemic response, there's no guarantee future administrations would adopt the knowledge. For instance, former President Donald Trump never used the "pandemic playbook" assembled by President Barack Obama during his reign.
Yet, what if the subcommittee tried? As Fauci remarked regarding the hearing, "The purpose of us being here is to figure out how we can improve the next time." However, that didn't occur in this particular subcommittee hearing.
Get our free weekly newsletter
- Sign up for CNN Opinion's newsletter cnn.com/signup/opinion?platform=email
- Follow us on Twitter @cnnopinion and @CNNOpinion
- To advertise, email [email protected]
(Image: President Joe Biden sits at his desk in the Oval Office. OLIVIA SUN/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES)
(Image: Dr. Anthony Fauci testifies before a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Coronavirus on Capitol Hill. STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
(Image: Dr. David Morens. NIH/Flickr)
(Image: Dr. Peter Daszak. NIH/Flickr)
Read also:
Despite the heated debate over the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, it's important to consider various opinions on the matter. Many people believe that the virus emerged naturally, while others propose it could be a man-made construct.
The subcommittee's examination of Fauci's role in the pandemic has sparked a multitude of opinions, with some viewing his involvement as questionable, and others defending his actions.
