WSJ’s misleading claims on gain-of-function research debunked as Trump considers funding ban
By isabelle // 2025-02-03
Copy
 
  • Investigative journalist Paul Thacker critiques The Wall Street Journal’s defense of gain-of-function (GoF) research, linking it to COVID-19 origins.
  • Thacker highlights bipartisan concerns over GoF risks, noting a 2014 Obama-era ban and offshoring to Wuhan.
  • Polls show 66% of Americans, including 53% of Democrats, believe COVID-19 likely originated from a Chinese lab.
  • Critics argue GoF research poses high risks with minimal scientific value, as highlighted by Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch.
  • Trump considers an executive order to halt federal funding for GoF research amid bipartisan scrutiny and pandemic connections.
In a scathing critique, investigative journalist Paul Thacker has dismantled The Wall Street Journal’s recent defense of gain-of-function (GoF) research, a controversial practice that involves enhancing the transmissibility or lethality of pathogens. Thacker’s analysis comes as former President Donald Trump reportedly considers an executive order to halt federal funding for such experiments, which many believe played a role in the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The WSJ framed opposition to GoF research as a partisan issue, suggesting concerns over its risks emerged only during the pandemic. Thacker, however, points out that GoF research has been under scrutiny for over a decade. In fact, the Obama administration banned it in 2014 due to its inherent dangers, prompting Dr. Anthony Fauci to offshore these experiments to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China through the EcoHealth Alliance.

Misleading claims and conflicts of interest

The WSJ article claimed that only “some Republicans” believe GoF research caused COVID-19, but polling data tells a different story. An Economist/YouGov poll found that 66 percent of Americans — including 53 percent of Democrats — believe the virus likely originated from a Chinese lab. The WSJ also cited scientists with significant conflicts of interest, downplaying the possibility of a lab leak despite high-level government concerns. Thacker highlights how the WSJ ignored the broader public consensus and the troubling history of GoF research. “The government was concerned at the highest levels that the virus started in a lab,” he noted, adding that the WSJ’s narrative was “amazing” in its disregard for these facts. Gain-of-function research has long been criticized for its potential to create dangerous pathogens. Marc Lipsitch, a Harvard epidemiologist, argues that the risks far outweigh the benefits. “There’s a big element of randomness in evolution,” Lipsitch told the Los Angeles Times. “The fact that an experiment goes one way in the lab doesn’t mean it will go the same way somewhere else.” Lipsitch also pointed out that the knowledge gained from such experiments is often not generalizable. “What you learn in one strain can be the opposite for a very closely related strain,” he said. Instead of pursuing risky GoF studies, Lipsitch advocates for focusing on basic epidemiology and veterinary research to better understand and prevent outbreaks.

The pandemic connection

The renewed scrutiny of GoF research comes amid revelations about its connection to the Wuhan lab. Documents obtained by The Disinformation Chronicle show that EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based nonprofit, planned risky experiments involving chimeric MERS and SARS viruses as early as 2016 — years before the COVID-19 pandemic. These experiments, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), were conducted despite a 2014 White House pause on GoF research. Trump’s potential executive order to defund GoF research reflects growing bipartisan concern over its dangers. Critics argue that such experiments not only risk accidental leaks but also provide minimal scientific value. “I can’t think of any route by which gain-of-function studies could have informed—much less answered—those questions,” Lipsitch said, referring to the basic epidemiological inquiries that could have helped prevent the pandemic. As Thacker’s analysis reveals, the WSJ’s defense of GoF research is riddled with inaccuracies and omissions. The risks of these experiments are clear, and their connection to the COVID-19 pandemic remains a subject of intense debate. With Trump considering a ban on federal funding for GoF research, the U.S. may finally take a decisive step toward ending this dangerous practice. Sources for this article include: ZeroHedge.com Today.YouGov.com HSPH.Harvard.edu
Copy