During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the “lab leak” theory gained little traction. Sure, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China—and called it “the China virus”—but he never presented evidence, and few in the scientific community took him seriously.
在2019冠病毒症(COVID-19：Coronavirus Disease-19)大流行的第一年，“室外”理少得吸引力。然，美唐德·川普暗示，第二型重急性呼吸系徵候群-冠病毒(SARS-CoV-2：Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2)起源於中武市的室，且它“中病毒”。不，他未提出。因此，科界很少人真地受他影。
In fact, early in the pandemic, a group of prominent researchers dismissed lab-origin notions as “conspiracy theories” in a letter in The Lancet. A report from a World Health Organization (WHO) “joint mission,” which sent a scientific team to China in January to explore possible origins with Chinese colleagues, described a lab accident as “extremely unlikely.”
事上，在大流行病初期，一群著名的研究人，在英《柳刀》期刊的一封信中，室起源的概念斥“”。自世界生(WHO)一“合任”，於2021年1月派遣一支科前往中，中同僚探索可能起源的一份告，室意外事件述“度不可能”。
But this spring, views began to shift. Suddenly it seemed that the lab-leak hypothesis had been too blithely dismissed. In a widely read piece, fueled by a “smoking gun” quote from a Nobel laureate, a veteran science journalist accused scientists and the mainstream media of ignoring “substantial evidence” for the scenario.
不，今年(2021年)春天，解始。突然，室外的假，似乎已太率地被。在一篇，由引述自一名得主，一“”所激起，被泛的文章中，一位深科者指了，忽此本之“性”的科家及主流媒。
The head of WHO openly pushed back against the joint mission’s conclusion, and U.S. President Joe Biden ordered the intelligence community to reassess the lab-leak possibility. Eighteen scientists, including leaders in virology and evolutionary biology, signed a letter published in Science in May that called for a more balanced appraisal of the “laboratory incident” hypothesis.
世界人公，反上述合任的推回。不，美拜登命令情部，重新估室外的可能性。18位科家，包括病毒及演化生物的者，在5月表於《科》期刊的一封信上署名，呼“室意外事件”之假，行平衡的估。
Yet behind the clamor, little had changed. No breakthrough studies have been published. The highly anticipated U.S. intelligence review, delivered to Biden on 24 August, reached no firm conclusions, but leaned toward the theory that the virus has a natural origin.
不，在此喧背後，少有改。因，有突破性的研究曾被表。受期待之美情部的查，有得明的，於2021年8月24日交拜登。不，向病毒具有自然起源的理。
Fresh evidence that would resolve the question may not emerge anytime soon. China remains the best place to hunt for clues, but its relative openness to collaboration during the joint mission seems to have evaporated.
解此的新可能不很快出。中仍然是找索的最佳所在地。不，在合任期，其合作的相放性，似乎已消失。
Chinese officials have scoffed at calls from Biden and WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus for an independent audit of key Wuhan labs, which some say should include an investigation of notebooks, computers, and freezers.
中官自拜登及世界秘德塞，有些人表示包括，一有本、及冰查之武市重要室，行立查的呼嗤之以鼻。
Chinese vice health minister Zeng Yixin said such demands show “disrespect toward common sense and arrogance toward science.” In response to the increasing pressure, China has also blocked the “phase 2” studies outlined in the joint mission’s March report, which could reveal a natural jump between species.
中副生部，Zeng Yixin表示，要求示“常的不尊重及科的傲慢”。在日益增多的力反上，中也已阻多，於合任可能揭露，物自然之3月告中，被概述的“第二段”研究。
Despite the impasse, many scientists say the existing evidence—including early epidemiological patterns, SARS-CoV-2’s genomic makeup, and a recent paper about animal markets in Wuhan—makes it far more probable that the virus, like many emerging pathogens, made a natural “zoonotic” jump from animals to humans.
管此僵局，多科家表示，包括初期流行病模式、SARS-CoV-2的基因成及最近一篇，有在武物市之文的有。使得病毒，如同多新病原般成一，物到人之自然“人畜共通疾病”的可能性更大得多。
Some of those clues have led Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Arizona who has done groundbreaking work on the origins of HIV and the 1918 flu, further away from the lab-origin theory. Although he always viewed it as less likely, he co-signed the Science letter calling for a more thorough investigation of the lab-leak hypothesis.
其中有些索已引了，美利桑那大，在人免疫缺陷病毒(HIV：Human Immunodeficiency Virus)及1918年流感之起源，曾行拓性研究的演化生物家，Michael Worobey一步室起源的理。然他一直，不可能。不，他共同署了，於《科》期刊，呼更底查室外假的信函。
But like at least one other signatory, he now has second thoughts about that plea, in part because it heightened political tensions. “I think it probably did more harm than good in terms of actually having relevant information flow out of China,” he says.
不，至少如同另一位署者，目前有那求，他有第二想法。部分因提升了，政治局。他宣：「他，得由中流出的有信息方面，可能致更多弊大於利。」
Jesse Bloom, an evolutionary biologist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center who spearheaded the Science letter, says the lab-origin theory will continue to thrive until the Chinese government becomes more cooperative.
上述《科》期刊的信函者，美弗雷德哈森癌症研究中心的演化生物家，Jesse Bloom表示，室起源的理持旺盛，直到中政府得更合作。
“I don’t think Chinese scientists are less trustworthy,” says Bloom, who has sharply criticized China for attempting to “obscure” data about early COVID-19 cases. “But it’s clear that, at least in relation to this topic, they are operating under strong constraints imposed by the government.”
曾批中，“遮掩”有早期COVID-19病例的Bloom宣：「他不，中科家不值得信。不很然，至少於此，他是在政府施加的多大力下，行作。」
AT ITS CORE, the lab-origin hypothesis rests on proximity. A novel coronavirus, genetically linked to bats, surfaced in a city that’s home to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which has long specialized in studying bat coronaviruses, and two smaller labs that also handle those viruses. One or more lab workers could have become infected by accident, then passed the virus to others.
在其核心，室起源的假是基於相近。一上蝙蝠被起的新型冠病毒，出於期一直攻研究蝙蝠冠病毒的武病毒研究所(WIV)，及所也理那些病毒之小室的所在城市。一名或多名室工作人可能曾意外遭感染，之後病毒其他人。
Lab accidents are not unheard of, after all: SARS-CoV, the coronavirus that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), has infected researchers as many as six times after the global outbreak of that disease ended in July 2003.
竟，室的意外事件非所未：致重急性呼吸系候群(SARS)的冠病毒SARS-CoV，在2003年7月束之那疾病全球爆後，曾感染多六倍的研究人。
A researcher’s infection with SARS-CoV-2 needn’t have happened in Wuhan itself. Alina Chan, a gene therapy researcher at the Broad Institute who also co-signed the Science letter, cites a study by WIV researchers, published in 2018, that sampled blood from 218 people who lived 1000 kilometers from the city near caves that were home to coronavirus-infected bats.
研究人感染SARS-CoV-2未必曾生於武市。也共同署《科》期刊信函的博德研究所基因法研究，Alina Chan引用了武病毒研究所，研究人於2018年所表，一居住於距城市1千公里，靠近遭冠病毒感染之蝙蝠息洞穴，218人取得血液本的研究。
&nbp;
Six of these people had antibodies that suggested prior infections by SARS-related bat coronaviruses, a branch of the family tree that includes SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, and close cousins. Wuhan researchers have visited that area repeatedly and “easily could have picked up something from a human who already carried a human-adapted form of a SARS-related virus,” Chan says.
其中6人具有，暗示先前遭SARS相之蝙蝠冠病毒感染的抗。此病毒是包括，SARS-CoV、SARS-CoV-2及近病毒之家族的一分支。Chan宣：「武病毒研究所的研究人，曾多次造那地。因此，可能曾易一位，已人之SARS相型病毒的人，得某西。」
Shi Zhengli, the lead bat coronavirus scientist at WIV, denies that anyone at the lab fell ill around the time SARS-CoV-2 emerged. In an email interview with Science in July 2020, she wrote that “all staff and students in the lab” were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and related coronaviruses and were negative.
武病毒研究所的首要蝙蝠冠病毒科家，Shi Zhengli否，於室的任何人，在大SARS-CoV-2出，生病。在2020年7月一接受《科》期刊的子件，她道，“於室的所有及生”皆接受SARS-CoV-2及相冠病毒的，果呈性。
Still, in January, days before Trump left office, the U.S. Department of State said the “government has reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV became sick in autumn 2019.”
管如此，在2021年1月，川普任前天，美院表示“政府有理由相信，武病毒研究所部若干名研究人，在2019年秋季染病。”
And on 23 May, The Wall Street Journal reported the existence of an “undisclosed U.S. Intelligence report” that said three WIV researchers “sought hospital care” in November 2019. The story had no details about their illnesses, and some have noted that Chinese hospitals provide care for all ailments, including minor ones.
而在2021年5月23日，《街日》存在一份，宣三名武病毒研究所研究人，於2019年11月“求院理”之“未公的美情告”。有攸他的疾病情，不有些人曾指出，中院所有疾病提供理，包括小病。
Virologist Robert Garry of Tulane University finds it improbable that a Wuhan lab worker picked up SARS-CoV-2 from a bat and then brought it back to the city, sparking the pandemic. As the WIV study of people living near bat caves shows, transmission of related bat coronaviruses occurs routinely.
美杜大的病毒家，Robert Garry，武室的工作人，不大可能蝙蝠感染上SARS-CoV-2，之後其回城市，而此大流行病。因，武病毒研究所，有生活於靠近蝙蝠洞穴之人的研究示，相之蝙蝠冠病毒的染常生。
“Why would the virus first have infected a few dozen lab researchers?” he asks. The virus may also have moved from bats into other species before jumping to humans, as happened with SARS. But again, why would it have infected a lab worker first? “There are hundreds of millions of people who come in contact with wildlife.”
他疑：「何病毒最先感染十名室研究人？」如同SARS生般，病毒在到人之前，也可能已蝙蝠移到其他物。不另一方面，有野生物有接的人，何病毒最先感染室工作人？
Another data point argues against infected researchers playing a role, Garry says. As the WHO joint mission report spells out, clusters of early COVID-19 cases had links to multiple Wuhan markets around the same time, which Garry says supports the idea of infected animals or animal traders bringig the virus to the city.
Garry表示，另一(是一散的信息元。一般而言，任何一事皆是。)成了，遭感染之研究人，扮演一角色的反。如同世界合任告清楚明般，初期的COVID-19病例群，大在同一，已多武市有性。Garry表示，支持了遭感染的物或物易商，病毒到此城市的解。
A lab worker with COVID-19 would have had to make “a beeline not just to one market, but to several different markets,” he says. “You can’t rule it out, but then why the markets? Why not a soccer game or a concert or 100 other different scenarios?”
他宣：「一名罹患COVID-19的室工作人，可能曾必需不只是一直的前往一市，而是前往若干不同市。法排除它，不在那情下，何是此些市？何不是一足球比、音或其他1百不同本？」
But David Relman, a Stanford University microbiome researcher who also co-signed the Science letter, questions the “hopelessly impoverished” data on the earliest COVID-19 cases. “I just don’t think we have enough right now to say anything with great confidence,” Relman says.
不，也共同署上述《科》期刊信函之美史丹佛大微生物研究，David Relman疑，有最初COVID-19病例之“一如洗的”。Relman宣：「他只是不，目前咱有足的正理由，以高度信心任何事情。」
Linfa Wang, a molecular virologist at the Programme in Emerging Infectious Diseases at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore who has collaborated extensively with WIV on bat coronavirus studies, has a simpler reason for dismissing the lab-leak hypothesis.
新加坡杜克-新加坡立大所院，新染病之分子病毒家，蝙蝠冠病毒研究，曾武病毒研究所泛合作的Linfa Wang，有更的理由，回室外的假。
“Accidents can only happen when you already have a live virus in culture that can leak,” Wang says. Bat coronaviruses are notoriously hard to grow. Shi told Science last year that her lab had more than 2000 bat fecal samples and anal and oral swabs that tested positive for coronaviruses.
Wang宣：「在可能外之培液中，已有活病毒，意外事件才生。」所周知，蝙蝠冠病毒很生。去年，Shi告《科》期刊，她的室有2千多蝙蝠便本，及冠病毒呈性的肛口腔拭子。
But the lab had only isolated and grown three viruses over 15 years, Shi said, and none closely resembled SARS-CoV-2. Some have questioned Shi’s veracity—she may well be under pressure from the Chinese government—and noted inconsistencies in her statements, but several scientific collaborators outside China have high regard for her integrity.
不Shi表示，在15年，其室曾析及培三病毒，且一SARS-CoV-2很相似。有些人曾疑Shi的性(她很可能是在自中政府的力下)，指出其述中的多矛盾。不，中以外的若干科合作者，已高度重她的正直。
Wang also discounts reports that WIV has live bats. “Many years back” the lab conducted immune studies on live bats, Wang says, but these were not of the genus Rhinolophus—the only one found to harbor SARS-related coronaviruses—which no lab has ever been able to keep alive in captivity.
Wang也不予全信，武病毒研究所有活蝙蝠的多。他表示，“多年前”室活蝙蝠，行了多免疫的研究。不，此些不於 蹄鼻蝠(唯一被藏SARS有之冠病毒的蝙蝠)。有室曾能使蝙蝠，存活於豢的境中。
A great deal of speculation about the pandemic’s origin has centered on six men who developed severe respiratory illnesses in 2012 after clearing bat feces from a copper mine in Mojiang, in China’s Yunnan province. Three of them died.
有此大流行病起源的大量猜曾集中於，在2012年，清除中南省墨江之蝙蝠便後，罹患了重呼吸道疾病，其中三名死亡的6名男子身上。
Lab-origin proponents have suggested the men were infected with a coronavirus, a belief fed by a 2013 master’s thesis that provided no direct evidence. That bat virus, they argue, either was SARS-CoV-2 or was turned into it through genetic engineering.
室起源的提者曾暗示，此些男子感染上一冠病毒。是由2013年一篇，有提供直接之士文，加深的一解。他，那蝙蝠病毒不是SARS-CoV-2，就是透基因工程成的SARS-CoV-2。
When the miners fell ill, Shi and co-workers were asked to sample bats at the mine, which they did on several occasions. They discovered nine new SARS-related viruses. One of these, dubbed RaTG13, is 96.2% genetically identical to SARS-CoV-2, the closest overall similarity yet found.
此些工生病，Shi及同事被要求，在坑中，取蝙蝠本。她曾多次行。了，九SARS有的新病毒。其中之一，被RaTG13的病毒，基因上96.2%SARS-CoV-2完全相同。是迄今止，所最接近整的相似性。
A loose-knit group whose members call themselves DRASTIC—for the Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19—has driven a heated discussion about possible links between RaTG13 and SARS-CoV-2.
有RaTG13SARS-CoV-2之的可能性，一支成自DRASTIC(Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19：分散式激自主搜索查COVID-19)之散的，已推了烈的。
Shi has reported that her lab tested blood from the miners and did not find evidence of coronaviruses or antibodies to them. Wang, who helped with these analyses, finds the assertion that the team suppressed evidence of SARS-CoV-2’s link to the Mojiang mine preposterous.
Shi曾告，其室了自此些工的血液，有他具有冠病毒或抗的。助行此些分析的Wang，了 SARS-CoV-2墨江坑意之性的武之。
“We wanted to prove that a coronavirus caused the deaths,” says Wang, who grew up in Shanghai but is now an Australian citizen. “If we proved that another SARS-like virus was in humans in China that would have been scientifically brilliant,” he says. “It’s a Science or Nature paper. No scientist is going to wait for this to leak.”
在上海大，不目前是澳大利公民的Wang宣：「他想，死亡是由冠病毒所引起。倘若他，另一似SARS的病毒，存在於中的人中，那是科上煌的。是一篇《科》或《自然》的文。有科家等待此露。」
Even Bloom agrees with that logic. “Tha’s one of the strongest arguments you can make against a lab accident,” he says. “On the other hand, I feel like a lot of these questions could be resolved pretty easily by enhanced transparency.”
甚至Bloom也同意那。他宣：「那是人能反室意外事件，提出的最有力之一。另一方面，他得好像，藉由提高透明度，很多此些能很易被解。」
IN THE MOST ELABORATE lab-leak scenarios, SARS-CoV-2 is not a naturally occurring virus, but was created at WIV. That would bring worldwide condemnation on China, but it would also devastate the field of virology.
在最精心作之室外漏的本中，SARS-CoV-2不是自然生的病毒，而是在武病毒研究所被造的。那招致全世界中的，此外也破病毒域。
There has been an intense debate over the past decade about the scientific value of “gain-of-function” (GOF) studies, which deliberately create pathogens that are more virulent or more transmissible to humans—or both—than their natural cousins. Some say GOF studies can help identify and thwart future threats, but critics argue the potential benefits don’t outweigh the risk of creating and unleashing pandemic pathogens.
有故意造出病原，比其天然同物更毒或更易染人(或兼具者)之多“功能得”(GOF)研究的科值，在去十年中，一直有激烈的。有些人表示，GOF研究能有助於及阻未的威。不，批者在的益，不生及放出大流行病之病原的。
Shi has created chimeric viruses in the past to get around the difficulty of growing coronaviruses isolated from bats. In work with Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance and Wang, described in a 2017 paper in PLOS Pathogens, WIV made chimeras using the genetic “backbone” of one of the bat coronaviruses her lab could culture and genes that coded for the surface protein, called spike, from newly found coronaviruses.
於去，Shi曾造嵌合病毒以克服，培蝙蝠析之冠病毒的困。在2017年，表於《PLOS Pathogens》期刊的一篇文中描述了，在美生健康盟Peter Daszak及Wang的研究中，武病毒研究所使用Shi室，能培的蝙蝠冠病毒之一的“骨”，及被棘突之表面蛋白的基因，造了嵌合。
Scientists disagree about whether this was GOF research. Shi says it was not, because the hybrid viruses her group created were not expected to be more dangerous than the original strains.
於是否是GOF研究，科家意不合。Shi表示不是，因其造的混合病毒，期不比原的病毒株更危。
Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which helped fund the study, told Congress it does not qualify as GOF research under NIAID’s guidelines. Relman finds the GOF label “vague and confusing” and instead describes this as “unnecessarily risky research.”
助助研究的美家敏暨染病研究所(NIAID)，所Anthony Fauci告，根NIAID的指方，不具GOF研究的件。 RelmanGOF的“且混”，是此描述“不必要的冒研究”。
Definitions aside, if Shi was creating chimeric viruses, SARS-CoV-2 may have been one of them, lab-leakproponents say. They also note biosecurity measures at the lab were relaxed. In her 2020 Science interview, Shi denied conducting chimeric virus experiments beyond those reported in the 2017 paper, but she acknowledged doing some coronavirus studies in biosafety level 2 facilities.
室外的支持者表示，撇定不。倘若Shi是造嵌合病毒，SARS-CoV-2可能曾是其中之一。他也指出，於室的生物安全措施是弛的。Shi在2020年《科》期刊的中，否行了超出那些於2017年文中，的嵌合病毒。不，她承在生物安全2 施中，行了一些冠病毒研究。
That’s one level lower than even Ralph Baric, a coronavirus researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who has collaborated with Shi, thinks is appropriate. Shi stressed that the work complied with all Chinese regulations.
那甚至比，美北卡大教堂山分校，曾Shi合作的冠病毒研究，Ralph Baric是合的低一。Shi，研究符合中的所有法。
Still, many scientists contend that SARS-CoV-2 can’t be a lab concoction because no known virus is close enough to have served as its starting material. Some have countered that RaTG13, the virus found in the Mojiang mine, could have been that backbone.
然而，多科家，SARS-CoV-2不可能是室的物。因，有已知的病毒似的足以作其起始材料。一些人反，在墨江坑中的RaTG13病毒，可能曾是那骨。
That makes no sense, asserts a “critical review” by Garry, Worobey, and 19 other scientists that Cell published online on 19 August. More than 1100 nucleotides, the building blocks of RNA, separate the genomes of the two viruses, and the differences are scattered in a way that doesn’t suggest deliberate engineering.
力由Garry、Worobey及其他19位科家，2021年8月19日表於路版《胞》期刊的一“批判性查”，那是意的。因，超1100核苷酸(RNA的材)，分病毒的基因，且此些差是以一，不使人想到蓄意工程改造的方式分散。
“Nobody has the sort of insight into viral pathogenesis to design something as really devious as SARS-CoV-2,” Garry says. Three other bat viruses more similar to SARS-CoV-2 than RaTG13 in some key genomic regions are also unlikely to have been used as a template for the pandemic virus, according to the paper.
Garry宣：「人具有病毒病制的洞察力，如SARS-CoV-2真正狡猾的西。」根此文，在某些基因域，比RaTG13更似SARS-CoV-2的其他三蝙蝠病毒，也不可能曾被使用作，此大流行病的病毒模板。
The “smoking gun” evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered, in the words of virologist and Nobel laureate David Baltimore, has not held up either. Spike has a cleavage site, a spot where a human enzyme named furin cuts the protein, which helps SARS-CoV-2 infect cells.
以病毒家暨得主David Baltimore所的，SARS-CoV-2是被工程改造的“”，也不曾被提出。棘突具有一，被弗林蛋白酶的人酵素，切割助SARS-CoV-2感染胞之蛋白的劈裂位。
Since early in the pandemic, lab-origin proponents have claimed that no SARS-related bat coronaviruses have this feature, leading to speculation that a lab added the site to a virus so it could infect humans. When retired New York Times writer Nicholas Wademade the case for a lab leak this spring, the furin cleavage site, buttressed by Baltimore’s provocative words, was an essential part of the argument.
打此大流行病初期以，室起源的支持者曾，SARS相的蝙蝠冠病毒具有特徵。致使室位添加到一病毒中，因此它能感染人。今年(2021年)春天，退休的《》作家，Nicholas Wade提出有利於室外的理由，遭Baltimore挑性言支持的弗林蛋白酶劈裂位，是的核心部分。
But it’s dead wrong, say many coronavirus specialists and evolutionary biologists. The SARS-related coronaviruses are in the beta genus, one of four in the Coronaviridae family. Several members of that genus feature furin cleavage sites, which appear to have evolved repeatedly.
不，多冠病毒家及演化生物家表示，完全。SARS相的冠病毒於β，是冠病毒家族中的四之一。那的若干成，以然已重演化之弗林蛋白酶劈裂位特徵。
And one SARS-CoV-2–related virus, described in a Current Biology paper last year by a team led by Shi Weifeng of Shandong First Medical University, has three of the four amino acids that constitute the furin cleavage site, which is “strongly suggestive of a natural zoonotic origin” for SARS-CoV-2, the authors concluded.
在去年(2020年)，一支由中山第一大，Shi Weifeng之，表於《代生物》期刊的一篇文中，描述了一SARS-CoV-2相的病毒，具有成弗林蛋白酶劈裂位之四氨基酸中的三。此些撰文者下了，SARS-CoV-2而言，“烈使人想到一天然的人畜共患病起源”。
Baltimore has backpedaled the statement. He did not know several bat beta coronaviruses have the furin cleavage site, he acknowledged in an email to Science. “[T]here is more to this story than I am aware of,” he wrote. “The furin cleavage is the most ridiculous stuff,” Wang says.
Baltimore已背此明。他在《科》期刊的一封子件中，承不知道有若干蝙蝠β冠病毒，具有弗林蛋白酶劈裂位。他道：「此情有比他意到的多。」 Wang宣：「弗林蛋白酶劈裂是最不合理的容。」
Instead of genetically manipulating a virus, a lab could also have created SARS-CoV-2 by passaging, a technique in which researchers grow a virus in a lab dish or an animal, harvest it, and repeat the process again and again, allowing mutations to accrue.
取代上操病毒，藉由代移(研究人在室培皿或物中，培、得病毒，且一再重此程，而容生突的一技)，室也可能曾造出SARS-CoV-2。
But again, they would have needed to start with a close relative of SARS-CoV-2. There’s no evidence that this precursor existed in any lab. And passaging in cell cultures often deletes the furin cleavage site or makes viruses weaker.
不同，他需要以SARS-CoV-2的近始。有前身物，存在於任何室中的。胞培液中的代移，通常除弗林蛋白酶劈裂位，或使病毒弱。
Even the U.S. intelligence community during the Trump administration discounted the suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 was “manmade.” The report requested by Biden, which sought input from several groups in the intelligence community, similarly concludes that the virus “was probably not genetically engineered.” (It also said there was “broad agreement” that it “was not developed as a biological weapon.”)
甚至川普政府期的美情部也不全信，SARS-CoV-2是“人造”的暗示。由拜登要求的告，徵求了自情部中若干的信息，同得出病毒“可能不是基因改造”的。(此告也表示，有“不是被作生物武器”之“泛一致的看法”。)
THE JOINT MISSION REPORT from WHO, which runs more than 300 pages and delves into everything from the viral sequences of the earliest cases to pharmacy sales, has several little-noticed findings that make a natural origin appear more likely than a lab leak, says Kristian Andersen, an evolutionary biologist at Scripps Research who co-authored the recent Cell paper with Garry and Worobey.
美斯克里普斯研究所，Garry及Worobey合撰，最近表於《胞》期刊之文的演化生物家，Kristian Andersen表示，自世界生合任，300多深入研究，最早病例的病毒序列，到房售之所有事物的告，有若干使得自然起源比室外，更有可能之少引人注目的。
“It wasn’t the perfect report,” he says, but it was “a great start to a collaborative study on understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
他宣：「不是完美的告。不，是解SARS-CoV-2起源之合作研究的一佳端。」
The earliest official announcement about the pandemic came on 31 December 2019, when Wuhan’s Municipal Health Commission reported a cluster of unexplained pneumonia cases linked to the city’s Huanan seafood market.
有此大流行病的最早官方公告，出於2019年12月31日。武市生委告了，市南海市有之一系列，原因不明的肺炎病例。
The WHO report devotes much attention to details about Huanan and other Wuhan markets, but also cautions that their role remains “unclear” because several early cases had no link to any market. But after reading the report, Andersen became more convinced that the Huanan market played a critical role.
世界的告，非常注於南及其他武市的情。不，也出此些市角色“不明朗”的警告。因，若干早期病例任何市有。不，完此告後，Andersen得更加相信，南市扮演了一角色。
One specific finding bolsters that case, Wang says. The report describes how scientists took many samples from floors, walls, and other surfaces at Wuhan markets and were able to culture two viruses isolated from Huanan. That shows the market was bursting with virus, Wang says: “In my career, I have never been able to isolate a coronavirus from an environmental sample.”
Wang表示，一具的支持了情。告描述了，科家如何武市的地板、壁及其他表面集多本，且能培出南市析出的病毒。那示，此市(南)充斥著病毒。Wang宣：「在他的生涯中，未曾能境本中，析出冠病毒。」
The report also contained a major error: It claimed there were “no verified reports of live mammals being sold around 2019” at Huanan and other markets linked to early cases. A surprising study published in June by Zhou Zhao-Min of China West Normal University and colleagues challenged that view.
告也具有一重大：它在南及其他早期病例有的市，“有活哺乳物，在2019年期，被出售之未的告”。 一由中西大Zhou Zhao-Min及同事，於2021年6月表之令人的研究，挑了那考察。
It found nearly 50,000 animals from 38 species, most alive, for sale at 17 shops at Huanan and three other Wuhan markets between May 2017 and November 2019. (The researchers had surveyed the markets as part of a study of a tick-borne disease afflicting animals.)
研究，於2017年5月至2019年11月期，在南及其他三武市的17家店售了，自38物，近5大部分是活的物。(此些研究人曾查些市，作研究一折磨物之蜱疾病的一部分。)
Live animals can more easily transmit a respiratory virus than meat from a butchered one, and the animals included masked palm civets, the main species that transmitted SARS-CoV to humans, and raccoon dogs, which also naturally harbored that virus and have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in lab experiments.
活物比自屠宰物的肉，更容易播呼吸器官的病毒。而些物包括，SARS-CoV播人之主要物的蒙面棕果子狸，及也自然藏那病毒且在室中，曾被感染上SARS-CoV-2的貉。
Minks—a species farmed for fur that has acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections from humans in many countries— were also abundant. “None of the 17 shops posted an origin certificate or quarantine certificate, so all wildlife trade was fundamentally illegal,” Zhou and his colleagues wrote in their paper.
貂(一在多家已人，得SARS-CoV-2感染之了毛皮，被殖的物)也很富。在Zhou及其同僚的文中，他述：「上述17家店一，原地明或疫明。因此，所有野生物交易根本是非法。」
It’s unclear why the international members of the WHO joint mission were not told about the live market mammals by their Chinese counterparts. “I’m really disappointed that came out after [the report],” says WHO’s Maria Van Kerkhove, who acknowledges contributing to the oversight herself because she mistakenly ignored a draft of the paper that the authors sent her when they first submitted it in October 2020.
目前不清楚，何世界合任的成，被中的人告知，有活市的哺乳物。世界的Maria Van Kerkhove宣：「在此告之後，她真的很失望。」她承，由於忽，此些撰文者，於2020年10月首次提交，送她的文草稿，致了她本人的疏漏。
Worobey says the paper played a key role in tilting his thinking away from the lab-origin hypothesis. “The fact that early [COVID-19] cass were linked to the market, and that the market was selling what were very likely intermediate hosts?” he says. “All of that is probably trying to tell us something.”
Worobey表示，在使其解偏室起源假上，此文扮演了一角色。他宣：「是因，初期COVID-19病例市有，及市所出售的很可能是中宿主？的事。」
Worobey suspects that after a SARS-CoV-2 progenitor jumped from animals to humans, it pingponged back and forth, steadily adapting to its new host. This could have happened at the market and gone unnoticed for weeks, as the outbreak only surfaced when several people became severely ill, a relatively rare outcome of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Worobey疑，在SARS-CoV-2前身物到人後，去，平地新宿主。可能曾生於市上，且展有被星期，因若干人病得很重，疫情爆才浮。是SARS-CoV-2感染，一相罕的果。
Or the virus could have first infected animal farmers in remote villages. “If this happened in a small town, it’s quite probable it would never have taken off,” says William Hanage, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University. Then animal traders might have brought the virus to markets in Wuhan, a city of 11 million.
或病毒可能曾首先感染了，於偏村的物主人。之後，物交易商可能曾此病毒到，有1100 人口之武市的多市。美哈佛大演化生物家，William Hanage宣：「倘若生於一小上，很可能不爆。」
Linda Saif, a veterinarian at Ohio State University, Wooster, says China’s enormous fur industry is at the top of her list of places to hunt for SARS-CoV-2’s precursors. Saif cites a report showing the vast majority of the world’s pelts from raccoon dogs and foxes—both canids, a family readily infected with SARS-CoV-2—are from animals farmed or trapped in China (see graphic, above). The country produces half of the world’s mink pelts, too.
美俄亥俄州立大伍斯特分校的，Linda Saif表示，中大的毛皮，是其找SARS-CoV-2前身的首之地。Saif引用了一份，示大多世界毛皮自貉及狐狸(犬科物，是一科容易感染 SARS-CoV-2的物)，是源自在中被或被陷捕之物的告。中也生半世界的貂皮。
An epidemic of African swine fever virus in pigs might also, indirectly, have helped spark the pandemic, a perspective in the 27 August issue of Science suggests. China’s mass culling of pigs because of that virus led to record high pork prices in November 2019. Food consumers and producers may have resorted to alternative types of meat, leading to "increased wildlife-human contacts."
2021年8月27日版《科》期刊的一暗示，非洲瘟病毒於中的流行，也可能曾接助此大流行病。由於那病毒，中大模，致了2019年11月，肉格下史新高。食品消者及生者可能已用替代型的肉，而致“增加了野生物人的接。”。
SO WHERE TO NOW? Bloom would like more details about the earliest human cases of COVID-19 and says WIV should share bat coronavirus sequences in a database it removed from the internet in September 2019, claiming the site had been hacked. “That could put a lot of this to rest,” he says.
那在去哪？Bloom想要更多有最早COVID-19人病例的情，且表示武病毒研究所，在其2019年9月，已遭客入侵之互站除的中，分享蝙蝠冠病毒序列。他宣：「可能平息很多。」
Sales data from Wuhan markets could help, too. If researchers could trace who farmed or trapped the live animals sold there and who delivered them to the markets, those people could be interviewed and perhaps sampled for evidence of past infections.
自武市市的售，也可能有所助益。倘若研究人能追踪或陷捕，在那售的活物，及送到此些市。就能那些人，且或能取得去感染的本。
In a comment published by Nature on 25 August, the international members of the joint mission warned it’s time to get on with “phase 2” because the window for some studies is closing. But WHO is reconfiguring the team.
在2021年8月25日，表於《自然》期刊的一中，合任的成提醒，是行“第二段”的候。因，一些研究的窗口中。不，世界正行重新配置。
It recently announced a new International Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) that will provide “rapid advice” to launch the follow-up studies described in the mission report, but also study the origins of future outbreaks.
世界最近宣一支，提供“快速建”，以任告中，所描述的後研究，除此之外，也研究未爆之起源的新型病原起源的科(SAGO)。
The Chinese government has shown no signs it will welcome SAGO members, but Wang is hopeful it will have a change of heart: “In an ideal world, we need a Chinese collaboration.”
中政府有展迎SAGO成的象。不，Wang希望中政府改心意：在理想的世界中，咱需要中的合作”。
Chinese scientists are conducting their own studies into potential natural origins, but few outside the country know details. “Unfortunately, finding out what is being done is getting harder by the day because the lab-leak stuff has turned COVID origins into a major political weapon,” says one Western researcher who asked not to be identified. “My colleagues in China are nervous and feeling great pressure.”
中科家正在的自然起源，行他自己的研究。不，外很少人知。一位不透露姓名的西方研究人宣：「不幸的是，正在行的事情，得日益。因，室外的材已COVID起源，成一主要的政治武器。他在中的同事很，且感到莫大力。」
China has been pushing the theory that the virus came from another country—maybe brought in on frozen food, or, according to baseless propaganda, concocted at a U.S. military lab. “It’s comical,” Worobey says. “The big picture here is China is doing everything it can to push the narrative that this pandemic started outside of China.”
中一直在推，病毒自另一家的理。可能是在冷食品上被入，或根毫基的宣，是在美事室被的。 Worobey宣：「很可笑。此大情是，中正竭全力推，流行病始於中境外的述。」
He suspects that while rejecting the lab-leak theory, the Chinese government is also unenthusiastic about pursuing a natural origin, fearing that proof would expose China to further blame for a pandemic even if the discovery exonerated Chinese scientists.
他疑，管拒室外的理，有追自然起源，中政府也不衷，心即使此解除了科家的罪，使中曝露於大流行病的更多非。
But even without China’s cooperation, there are ways to move ahea. Some studies elsewhere have already yielded intriguing leads. Researchers have found coronaviruses in bats in neighboring countries that suggest evolutionary pathways from an ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 to the pandemic virus.
不，即使有中的合作，也有多前的方法。其他地方的一些研究已生了，多引人好奇的索。在若干近家的蝙蝠中，研究人已，暗示SARS-CoV-2原，到此大流行病毒之演化途的冠病毒。
More clues may come from studies in Southeast Asia of wild pangolins—the only other species to date found to harbor a close SARS-CoV-2 relative. Researchers can also hunt for cases outside of China that predate the December 2019 outbreak.
更多的索可能自，南有野生穿山甲的研究。是迄今止，被藏一，接近SARS-CoV-2相病毒的唯一其他物。在中以外，研究人也能找，於2019年12月爆之前的病例。
One possibility, Wang says, is to check the blood of Wuhan visitors or residents who were in the city in the months before, including the 9000 athletes from more than 100 countries who attended the Military World Games there in October 2019. (A new antibody assay from his lab, he says, can distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and related viruses that may have preceded it.)
Wang表示，一可能性是，2019年12月月前，在武市的客或居住者，包括自百家，2019年10月世界人之9千名的血液。(他表示，自其室的一新抗分析，能在SARS-CoV-2可能在它之前的相病毒作出分。)
The search will never lead us to patient zero, the first person to be infected by SARS-CoV-2, Hanage says. “Humans are looking for a story,” he says. “They want Columbo to come in and just somehow get somebody to confess or show what actually happened.”
Hanage表示，此搜索不引咱找到，第一感染SARS-CoV-2的零病人。他宣：「人正在找一由。希望可坡(美犯罪中，洛杉警察局的案探)上，且只是以某方式，某人承或展，到底生了什。」
Instead, there are “possible stories” about SARS-CoV-2’s origin—some more probable than others—and stories that can be excluded, Hanage says. “And the space of possible stories in which there was a natural origin in or around the markets is much larger than the space of possible origins in which the Wuhan Institute of Virology is involved.”
不Hanage表示，有SARS-CoV-2的起源，有多“可能的由”(有些比其他更可能)及若干能被排除的由。“而在市或市周有自然起源之可能由的空，比武病毒研究所涉及之可能起源的空更大得多”。
址：https://www.science.org/content/article/why-many-scientists-say-unlikely-sars-cov-2-originated-lab-leak
翻:
文章定位：
