An open debate on SARS-CoV-2's proximal origin is long overdue

TL;DR

This paper argues that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains uncertain, highlighting inconsistencies with natural zoonotic explanations and advocating for an open investigation into potential laboratory origins to prevent future pandemics.

Contribution

It emphasizes the need for unbiased inquiry into SARS-CoV-2's origin, challenging the prevailing zoonotic hypothesis and calling for transparency and further research.

Findings

Multiple genomic features are inconsistent with natural zoonotic origin.

No conclusive evidence of zoonotic transfer from animals.

Laboratory origin hypotheses remain unsubstantiated.

Abstract

There is a near consensus view that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural zoonotic origin; however, several characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 taken together are not easily explained by a natural zoonotic origin hypothesis. These include: a low rate of evolution in the early phase of transmission; the lack of evidence of recombination events; a high pre-existing binding to human ACE2; a novel furin cleavage site insert; a flat glycan binding domain of the spike protein which conflicts with host evasion survival patterns exhibited by other coronaviruses, and high human and mouse peptide mimicry. Initial assumptions against a laboratory origin, by contrast, have remained unsubstantiated. Furthermore, over a year after the initial outbreak in Wuhan, there is still no clear evidence of zoonotic transfer from a bat or intermediate species. Given the immense social and economic impact of this pandemic, identifying the true origin of SARS-CoV-2 is fundamental to preventing future outbreaks. The search for SARS-CoV-2's origin should include an open and unbiased inquiry into a possible laboratory origin.