(Focus on China face-to-face) New crown virus traceability personal experience: who traces the global traceability, how to trace it, and where?
China News Service, Beijing, September 3, title: Traceability of the new crown virus Personal experience: Who traces the global traceability, how to trace it, and where?
China News Agency reporter Li Chun
The second phase traceability work plan of the new crown virus recently proposed by the WHO Secretariat has attracted widespread attention.
Many countries have pointed out that virus traceability research is a scientific task and should not be politicized.
Is it necessary to carry out the second round of traceability work in China?
Why should it be said that virus traceability should not be politicized, and what harm does political traceability bring?
How should the global traceability of the new coronavirus be carried out in the next stage?
Zhou Lei, a researcher at the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a member of the China-WHO Joint Expert Group on the Traceability of New Coronavirus, accepted an exclusive interview with China News Agency "Focus on China" to give an authoritative interpretation.
Excerpts from the interview are as follows:
Reporter from China News Service: As a member of the China-WHO Joint Expert Group on the Traceability of the Novel Coronavirus, you have participated in and witnessed the traceability research process in Wuhan. Can you talk about it based on your own experience, why is the China-WHO Joint Research Report on the Traceability of the Novel Coronavirus a valuable, authoritative, scientific and historical report?
Zhou Lei:
Your question brings my whole thoughts back to the unforgettable period in which we were in Wuhan at the beginning of this year, and for a longer period of time before that, when we and the World Health Organization’s international expert team jointly carried out the first phase of the global traceability study in China. experience.
This time the global traceability research is a scientific research activity.
First of all, the entire research design is based on a research plan jointly formulated by Chinese experts and a team of top foreign experts from many countries, including international organizations.
All members have sufficient scientific research experience and have been immersed in this field for many years, and hope to investigate the source clearly.
With this original intention, everyone worked together to jointly formulate research plans and work plans. At the beginning of this year, a team of foreign experts came to Wuhan. We jointly carried out on-site investigations in the cities where the epidemic was first reported, and jointly wrote and released research reports.
The efforts of these four "united" and multi-party expert teams are based on a scientific attitude, which is the foundation.
To conduct scientific research, we must uphold a scientific attitude from the stage of research and design.
On-site data collection and analysis, Chinese and foreign joint expert teams discussed together to form the final research report and conclusions are all open, fair and scientific.
China News Agency reporter: The second phase traceability plan proposed by the WHO Secretariat takes the hypothesis of "China's violation of laboratory procedures causing virus leakage" as one of the research priorities. What do you think of this second-stage traceability plan? Is it necessary to carry out the second round of traceability work in China?
Zhou Lei: It's
weird to make this point of view.
Initially, the research plan was formulated, including the joint team of experts arriving in Wuhan, site visits and visits, face-to-face interviews with relevant personnel, and so on. All work was carried out around the various possibilities of the origin of the new coronavirus.
In fact, as far as I know, the so-called laboratory hypothesis was not included in the TOR (work assignment book) that we formulated with experts from WHO at the beginning, because it is scientific common sense and there is no evidence.
When the WHO expert group came to China this year to discuss the work plan and specific research plan of this joint study, even if there is no scientific evidence, we agreed to include the laboratory hypothesis in a highly cooperative and responsible spirit. research content.
We spent a lot of energy to collect data, conduct on-site inspections, and went to the Wuhan Virus Institute. We did not close or conceal anything. We did everything that should be opened, displayed, and collected.
After a long period of work and data collection, including the analysis of the information and data that have been obtained, especially the final discussion and research and judgment, we reached the conclusion at that time, which was very clear in the first phase of the joint research report. And clearly stated that the hypothesis that "the new coronavirus leaked from the laboratory" is extremely unlikely.
In the case where the research conclusions have been obtained in the first stage, to mention this point again is itself contrary to scientific principles.
On the basis of respecting the results and discoveries of the first-stage global traceability research, and further carrying out traceability research guided by scientific evidence, this is the right way.
Only in this way can the global scientific community and all scientists and workers be able to answer the problems of this century, instead of getting entangled in the already clear research results and conclusions.
The reason why the first part of global traceability is proposed, there is bound to be follow-up work.
If you have been entangled here repeatedly, when will this work be completed?
What was the original intention to propose global traceability at that time?
Zhou Lei, a researcher at the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a member of the China-WHO Joint Expert Group on the Traceability of the New Coronavirus, received an exclusive interview with China News Agency "Focus on China" in Beijing.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Zhang Xinglong
China News Agency reporter: How should the global traceability research of the new coronavirus be carried out in the future? What kind of scientific spirit should be upheld?
Zhou Lei:
This work must be done.
Some questions have been answered, progress has been made, and progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go before the source and origin questions are truly answered.
As for how to do it, we should continue to uphold the principles of global, open, fair, just, and scientific, and impartial.
If you have any clues, look for them, and if you have data, analyze the data. This is a scientific attitude.
From the perspective of the research work program itself, the first phase of the model is very good.
Global traceability, the world should have the right to speak, all should have the opportunity to participate in research, and all should be possible to become research sites or objects.
We should continue to uphold this principle and attitude, jointly formulate research plans, and jointly determine the direction in which the second phase should be used for more in-depth research.
It is also necessary to emphasize that it must not deviate from the results of the first phase of the study.
Without continuity, this kind of scientific research itself is to be discounted and is unscientific.
It is necessary to adhere to the work model of the first stage of global traceability, based on the research results of the first stage, and on this basis, conduct in-depth exploration of some of the problems, clues and directions found in the first stage, and in-depth data collection and discussion. It is possible to get the answer.
I saw the (second-stage traceability) plan proposed by the World Health Organization (Secretariat), but I did not participate in it myself.
I learned that some scientists who participated in the first phase of work did not participate in the discussion of the second phase.
Based on the continuity of (research), the value of scientists who participated in the first phase of research should be taken seriously.
In the next stage of traceability research plan formulation, research discussions, development and research plans, etc., you can listen to the opinions of scientists who participated in the first stage of research, which is a fair, just, and open-minded approach.
We are also willing to make contributions, hoping to have the opportunity to participate in the next stage of work, and hope to contribute more to global traceability.
Scientific research is a scientific issue and should not be mixed with other factors. Once mixed, it will deviate from the track of true science.
Data map: People line up for vaccination at a new crown vaccination site in New York, USA.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Liao Pan
Reporter from China News Service: According to online opinion polls, 80% of global netizens who participated in the voting believed that the traceability of the new crown virus has been politicized. How do you view the current politicized research on the traceability of the new crown virus?
Zhou Lei:
So many netizens are paying attention to global traceability, and they have seen some problems, and they took the initiative to speak up. This makes me very touched and it is a kind of encouragement to us.
But in turn, as they said, why (politicization) is now a focus of discussion?
Politicization will affect the judgment and work of scientists, and affect the normal order of scientific research. Some scientists even receive unfair treatment for this reason.
Scientists publish articles using it as a carrier for communication, for browsing, reading and reference by colleagues around the world.
Because of politicization, many of our valuable research results and research findings have no way to communicate with international counterparts.
Some time ago, a domestic team studying cold chain transmission (discovered) the cold chain as a carrier and a possible condition, so that the virus can survive for a longer time under cold chain conditions, and then infect people.
Such a discovery is very helpful for us to fully understand the new crown virus, but unfortunately, it took a long time and changed many magazines to successfully publish it. This is a very sad thing.
It breaks the way that the global scientific community has consistently maintained and persisted.
Imagine if things go on like this, how do scientists all over the world communicate?
How does human science progress?
From this perspective, politicization has brought a bad influence on the spirit of science as a whole, and it is a very big obstacle to global traceability in particular.
As a scientist, you must take the initiative to abandon or fight against it, and truly complete the global traceability research work.
Many Chinese scientists, especially those involved in the first phase of the traceability study, think so.
Even if the wind blows and rains, we will continue to do what we should do.
Zhou Lei, a researcher at the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a member of the China-WHO Joint Expert Group on the Traceability of the New Coronavirus, received an exclusive interview with China News Agency "Focus on China" in Beijing.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Zhang Xinglong
China News Agency reporter: We have seen many reports that many scientific people have been personally attacked and threatened by verbal abuse because they are unwilling to give in and support the so-called "laboratory leak theory." Some experts even have to resign to defend their adherence. Scientific stance. What harm will this kind of pressure on international scientists bring to the research on the prevention, control and traceability of the new crown epidemic?
Zhou Lei: The
most direct victims are these innocent, upright, and scientific scientists who have suffered the most.
A scientist's struggle in a certain field takes a lot of time, energy and effort, and should be given full trust, support, and protection.
We have seen some reports that some of the international experts who participated in the first phase of traceability did indeed withdraw or resign forcibly or voluntarily.
After we saw it (feeling) very sad.
There is no doubt about their character, spirit, scientific attitude and ability level after working together and contacting so many days.
This kind of suppression and persecution is unacceptable to anyone.
The biggest victim of the suppression of these scientists is the entire global traceability work, which may not be able to proceed as planned.
The realization of the traceability research goal may be destructive, and even end in failure, which is something that no one wants to see.
Who is the global traceability for?
It is for the whole world, everyone on this earth.
It is our original intention to figure out the source and origin of such a big epidemic.
I feel uneasy for the international colleagues I have fought with, those friends.
China News Agency reporter: Cold chain transmission is a phenomenon that is very worthy of attention in the new crown pneumonia epidemic. How do you see the importance of using cold chains as key traceability clues?
Zhou Lei:
Actually, we can't say that cold chain is the source. It doesn't make sense in the profession. It is just a way of carrying it, and it is a way to cause transmission or infection of patients.
Taking it as a research direction is also because the first stage was in Wuhan, and Chinese and foreign experts jointly studied, discussed, and analyzed that this possibility exists.
Of course, it is not the strongest possibility, but it cannot be completely ruled out, because there is indeed a large amount of evidence that this possibility exists, so further research is needed.
Now (new crown virus) global traceability is particularly difficult, and it can be said that it is the most difficult traceability ever.
It is difficult to investigate the origin of many new infectious diseases, and the new crown is the same, and it is still in the epidemic period, so it is even more difficult to investigate.
But we are unwilling to give up lightly, do not let go of any clues easily, and strive to make every possible clue and direction as clear and clear as possible.
Zhou Lei, a researcher at the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and a member of the China-WHO Joint Expert Group on the Traceability of the New Coronavirus, received an exclusive interview with China News Agency "Focus on China" in Beijing.
Photo by China News Agency reporter Zhang Xinglong
Reporter from China News Service: At present, there have been many research results showing that the emergence of the new coronavirus in many places around the world is earlier than the previously known time, which indicates that Wuhan may not be the first site of the new coronavirus breakthrough interface. How do you think about it? What is the importance of multi-point, multi-directional and three-dimensional traceability in the first stage of the world?
Zhou Lei:
This is a global traceability, not a traceability of a certain country, it must be a global perspective.
With the gradual new progress and new discoveries in the field of traceability research in various countries, this provides a lot of clues and basis for further traceability research.
We cannot put all the possibilities in one place just because the epidemic was first discovered and reported in Wuhan, China. This idea is too narrow.
It's not that Wuhan is not important, of course it is.
I think we have been highly cooperating with the global traceability work and have done a lot of data collection, research, discussion and analysis.
On this basis, the research results and findings of the first phase have given some clues and hints. More samples, sequences, serums, etc. should be collected from the host animal and the most likely area, or to do some popularization. Epidemiological investigation.
This is very necessary to carry out research work in accordance with global traceability standards and principles.
As scientists or researchers involved in scientific research activities, we do not consider national or political factors. What we consider is where the virus came from and where it went.
Infectious diseases know no borders. Viruses do not require passports or countries.
Where should I look for the most likely clues?
How to excavate and explore based on existing data and evidence?
This is the top priority.
China News Agency reporter: In the previous joint research on the traceability of the new coronavirus, Chinese and foreign experts have established a good cooperative relationship. Chinese scientists have done a lot of work in animal traceability, molecular traceability, and environmental traceability. How will Chinese scientists participate in global scientific traceability research in the future? What role will it play?
Zhou Lei:
These Chinese scientists are particularly truth-seeking and pragmatic, and we have been working hard to keep up with the rhythm and pace of the international scientific community, and we are constantly learning and progressing. We must first affirm this.
As far as the Chinese scientists I have contacted, they are very serious and uphold a realistic and scientific attitude to do any scientific activity.
Over the years, Chinese scientists have increasingly actively participated in international scientific activities, exchanged and cooperated with international counterparts, and contributed scientists’ wisdom. This is the progress of the Chinese scientific community.
After the first phase of the global traceability in China was completed at the beginning of the year, we did not let go.
At that time, I was in Wuhan to discuss the research work plan, the next stage of work, and some research content and research tasks that needed to be supplemented and improved, and they were still moving forward.
No matter from which point of view, Chinese scientists should participate in the next stage of traceability.
This is not for a certain scientist himself, but purely to complete the research task and to uphold our original intention.
We also really want to work for global traceability and contribute a bit of our own strength to the global scientific community's breakthroughs in this field.
(over)