實驗室製造的冠狀病毒引發爭論

美國早在 2015 年時已經在實驗室中製造新型冠狀病毒，但仍未能證實與現在的冠狀病毒有關。提供以下資料作硏究及參考用途。


(中文翻譯版本，英文原文在之後，網址連結在最後）


實驗室製造的冠狀病毒引發爭論

創造併合型SARS病毒令科學家們討論「增加功能突變」研究的風險。
謝夫·阿克斯
2015年11月16日

北卡羅來納大學教堂山分校(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)的傳染病研究學者拉爾夫·巴域(Ralph Baric)上週(11月9日)刊登了一項在其小組努力下利用從中國的馬蹄蝙蝠中發現的SHC014冠狀病毒表層蛋白質，並以老鼠身上類似人類的嚴重急性呼吸系統綜合症(SARS)的病毒作骨架，製造出一種新病毒的研究。 研究小組的結果在《自然醫學(Nature Medicine)》雜誌上刊登，該變種病毒的初型能夠感染人類的呼吸道細胞，並能令鼠類致病。

此結果表明，SHC014表層蛋白質具有封鎖和感染人類細胞的能力，並確認這種病毒(或蝙蝠類中發現的其他冠狀病毒)有可能進化成不需透過中間宿主直接攻擊人類的擔憂。 他們還引發這些被稱為「增加功能突變」研究，是否值得冒風險進行的辯論。 巴黎巴斯德研究所(Pasteur Institute in Paris)的病毒學家西蒙·韋恩賀森(Simon Wain-Hobson)告知《自然》雜誌：“一旦[新]病毒逃泄了，由此引致後果將會無法估計。”

2013年10月，由於大衆對流感，SARS和中東呼吸綜合症(MERS)的擔憂日益增加，美國政府終止了所有用於「增加功能突變」研究的聯邦資金。 當時在一份聲明中，美國國立衛生研究院(NIH)主任弗朗西斯·柯林斯(Francis Collins)說：“美國國立衛生研究院為此類研究提供了資助，原因是它有助於定性人類與病原體相互作用的基本性質，亦能評估潛在新興流行病的傳染媒介，並為公共衛生和病災防預工作提供資訊。但是這些研究還涉及生化安全和生化保安風險，這方面需要更深入了解。”

巴域告知《自然》雜誌，其對SHC014併合冠狀病毒的研究早在 NIH 宣佈資助終止之前已經展開了，NIH允許其在審查過程中繼續進行，最終審查結論認為該研究不受新規則限制。 但是部份學者，例如：韋恩賀森，則不同意這一決定。

爭論其後轉焦至研究結果上。 羅格斯大學(Rutgers University)分子生物學家兼生物防禦專家理查德·埃布賴特(Richard Ebright)對《自然》雜誌說：“在實驗室中創造了一種新的、非自然風險是唯一對這項工作巨大影響。”

但巴域和其他人則駁斥這項研究極為重要。 “(這些結果)能將病毒從候選的新興病原體抽出令人更清晰看到當前危險” 。環保健康聯盟(EcoHealth Alliance)總裁彼得·達薩克(Peter Daszak)告知《自然》雜誌，其公司負責從全球新興疾病熱點地區的動物和人類中採集病毒樣本。




Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate

The creation of a chimeric SARS-like virus has scientists discussing the risks of gain-of-function research.
Jef Akst
Nov 16, 2015

Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, last week (November 9) published a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice, according to the team’s results, which were published in Nature Medicine.

The results demonstrate the ability of the SHC014 surface protein to bind and infect human cells, validating concerns that this virus—or other coronaviruses found in bat species—may be capable of making the leap to people without first evolving in an intermediate host, Nature reported. They also reignite a debate about whether that information justifies the risk of such work, known as gain-of-function research. “If the [new] virus escaped, nobody could predict the trajectory,” Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, told Nature.

In October 2013, the US government put a stop to all federal funding for gain-of-function studies, with particular concern rising about influenza, SARS, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). “NIH [National Institutes of Health] has funded such studies because they help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, enable the assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts,” NIH Director Francis Collins said in a statement at the time. “These studies, however, also entail biosafety and biosecurity risks, which need to be understood better.”

Baric’s study on the SHC014-chimeric coronavirus began before the moratorium was announced, and the NIH allowed it to proceed during a review process, which eventually led to the conclusion that the work did not fall under the new restrictions, Baric told Nature. But some researchers, like Wain-Hobson, disagree with that decision.

The debate comes down to how informative the results are. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, told Nature.

But Baric and others argued the study’s importance. “[The results] move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger,” Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe, told Nature.


REFERENCE

The Scientist - Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate