Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
AS WE APPROACH the third anniversary of Leo Varadkar’s unexpected address to the nation from Washington, announcing an unprecedented and full-scale societal lockdown in response to the global outbreak of Covid-19, the US Department of Energy has concluded – albeit with “low confidence” – that the virus originated from an accidental laboratory leak in Wuhan, China.
The Director of the FBI has also recently announced that the Bureau has assessed the origin of the virus as due to a “potential lab incident”. There remains no consensus on how the outbreak began, with several other US agencies rejecting the lab-leak theory and positing a natural origin – the virus made the jump from animals to humans, possibly at a Wuhan “wet market” – and Beijing dismissing the lab-accident claim as having “no credibility whatsoever”.
An open debate over how the spread of Covid-19 began – obviously of great importance in planning to prevent or respond to a future outbreak – has been hampered by bitter pandemic politics. Donald Trump’s stoking of the US culture wars – referring to Covid as the “Chinese virus” and “kung flu” – has been linked to a surge in anti-Asian racism and hate crime.
In addition, the arguably premature dismissal of the possibility of a lab-leak origin as a conspiracy theory by more left-leaning news outlets and even the respected scientific journal The Lancet, helped stoke division and stymie useful discussion around the crucial question of how a virus emerged that caused the deaths of an estimated seven million people (and by some estimates, up to 20 million).
The suppression of open discussion around matters that concern all of us has highlighted the contemporary state of global politics as less “the art of the possible”, and more the art of making the possible impossible.
Look at the unfolding climate disaster. We know that the planet is becoming increasingly uninhabitable and we know that humankind has the ability to take drastic action to respond to such a global emergency.
The international response to the outbreak of Covid-19 – in which Ireland and many other countries changed overnight the way people lived their lives – was evidence, if evidence were needed, that societies are capable of reacting quickly and effectively to major disasters. Yet somehow, the climate crisis continues to be politically intractable.
Even relatively modest climate targets appear to be beyond reach, the government last week dropping its commitment, contained in the programme for government, to pass legislation banning the sale of fossil fuel cars by 2030. In the meantime, we are already seeing the consequences of our inaction: rising temperatures, extreme weather events, mass migration and food insecurity to name a few.
Returning to the politically toxic subject of the origin of Covid; in the midst of the rancour, a crucial and under-scrutinised problem has come to light: there are a large number of laboratories around the world undertaking so-called “gain of function” research – experimenting with adapting existing viruses to make them potentially more transmissible and deadly, in an effort to better understand how to respond to such strains should they emerge among the public – with little to no global regulation and oversight.
There is no global database of laboratories pinpointing what kind of research is being done under what level of security. The biosecurity experts Gregory Koblentz and Rocco Casagrande note that the US is home to more labs conducting high-risk research than anywhere else in the world, and have warned about the “patchwork” of regulations and policies applicable to pathogen research and the gaps that exist – all in a context of research done with good intentions, but which could result in the emergence of a highly dangerous strain of virus.
An overhaul of the system of oversight for this kind of research has recently been recommended by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity in the US. The partisan nature of the discourse around the origin of Covid has, however, more stoked division than shed light on how to best support important research while maintaining safety and promoting cooperation and oversight on a global scale. The recent proposals for increased oversight have already received a mixed response.
On a global scale, given the current state of relations between the US and China, it is difficult to imagine the two countries facilitating a mutually transparent process of oversight and cooperating in working to prevent any future accidental outbreak.
We may never achieve an overall consensus on how the pandemic began. To a certain extent, it doesn’t actually matter if the virus originated by way of natural transmission or by way of lab accident; what matters is that we take seriously that a lab leak with devastating consequences is, in theory, possible, and that we work together on a global basis to agree a set of standards and a policy of transparency to best avoid this risk.
The fact that this has not been achieved, three years after the beginning of Covid’s trail of death and disruption, does not paint a positive picture for global cooperation on the future crises – most urgently the climate crisis – that await.
Seána Glennon is a lawyer and Chief Outreach Officer at UCD’s Centre for Constitutional Studies, currently a visiting scholar at Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Not shocking anymore. Kind of half expect this sort of stuff now.
What is it with this man and “conflicts of interests” ?
Nothing to see here move along now !!
Ah lads , cronyism in ireland ? NEVER !!
Of course he denies a conflict of interest. When did you ever read, “Minister admits conflict of interest.”
O’Reilly would deny today is Friday. He cant even lay in bed straight at this stage.
From a guy who pushed two primary care sites in his own constituency up the list of potential sites…still waiting on the criteria you used Stroker!
Then what exactly is it then? Walks like a duck…etc
Welcome to Ireland,probably the most corrupt country in Europe
Hands up who is shocked or surprised by this. …….
Richie rodgers
We’ll get there stroke by stroke.
Reilly involved again no surprise there to be honest.
Shattergate mark2 ….Reilly on the inside track…….FG/Lab even more corrupt than FF, there is a scary reality…..Resign James you have your money made…..
How come the 20,000 commission was so low? The going rate for a report like this was 125,000 in 2011 and the Health Partnership is not a charity!
Women of Ireland, come together and let us al put a stop to this madness, I’d like to c a man in the full throws of labour, having to face a 2 hr car journey. On lovely pot-holed roads!!!
If he appointed someone from outside the area, the complaint would be that they didn’t understand the area.
If he appointed someone without the medical knowledge, the complaint would be that someone who didn’t understand medical provision was making the decisions
If he appoints someone from inside the area with the right medical background, the complaint is that there’s a conflict of interest.
I wish people would state who they think should be appointed, because almost every decision can have some line of attack.
Kinda sums up JR. Anyway after the reshuffle it will be someone else’s problem.
How many absolute effin’ outrages are we, as a nation, prepared to put up with? This Minister and his shady pals should be run out of the country, let alone sacked.
And deny being in denial
How come this commission was 6 times less than the going rate for the job? A bargain at 20,000! Such reports cost 125,000 in 2011.
The Journal got it wrong! The Health Partnership predates 2008! in March 2005 the company wrote to the Dept of Finance highlighting their role in private health care ventures in Ireland, UK, Portugal and Germany and suggesting tax incentives for private sector players in e.g. direct service provision, the supply of high tech equipment, patient and staff accommodation, primary care provision, nursing home care, etc. Even hospital traffic management got a look in. Hard to believe no one in the West/North-West hospital group knew of Mr Daly’s involvement with this high profile healthcare company.
Why would anyone be surprised with this ruling class carryon, and they wonder why people voted for the left
The main conflict of interest here is the fact tgat Noel Daly wrote to revenue in 2005 with what could be described as a bluepriting which would see private interests profiting from tge removal of public services. In that letter it mentions how the private sector could provide accomodation for people who due to clousure of public services would have to travek greater distances.
Over 6 years later tgis man is appointed chair of a hospital group. In the space of little over a year his company is given the task of reviewing maternitu in the same region. This report is said to recommend many clousures.
Given all this histiry I cannot see how this review can hold any authority. Or indeed how anyone in this countru could trust its recommendations.
In fact this review ihas been damaged beyond repair. Hiwever it should be made available to the public.
Luje Ming Flaagan spoje about concerns that gospital staff had about how tgis revuew was completed. Perhaps he should come back to this important debate in Irish healthcare before he leaves fir Europe.
Reilly people dont believe a word from your lying mouth!
have your say