编者按：8月18日，经士智库组织召开疫情溯源国际专家对话会。针对目前存在的美国将疫情溯源政治化以及对于下一步疫情溯源研究该往何处去的意见分歧，与会各国专家总结了 SARS-CoV-2 溯源研究工作中的经验教训，就今后SARS-CoV-2的溯源如何根据《国际卫生条例》（IHR）、世卫组织宪章、世卫大会决议和现行国际法规范以及未来制定的新规范开展工作提出了意见建议，对如何避免将 COVID-19 溯源政治化以及避免分散对最紧迫科学任务的注意力，并促进 COVID-19 溯源的国际合作的有效性等关键性问题，进行了富有建设性的讨论。

在美国拜登政府国安团队已经根据指示提交其调查报告之际，对比其报告内容和这次对话会上科学家的意见，美国国安团队疫情溯源调查报告更显得苍白无力，这也无外乎即使许多西方媒体也将拜登政府的这一动作视为“依据地缘政治需求”所做的议程设置。为使公众更多倾听科学家的声音，现将这次视频对话会文字实录整理发布，供国内外相关机构和专业领域人员参阅。

主持人及发言嘉宾文字实录如下：

田士臣 (Tian Shichen):

Okay. Let's open our discussion and at the same time wait for Professor Foster to join us. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening, for those new friends, I’m Andy Shichen Tian, Founder and President of the Global Governance Institution （GGI-JS，经士智库）, an independent international think tank in China. Due to the pandemic restrictions this time again we are meeting virtually for this international expert dialogue on recalibration of COVID-19 origin tracing. On behalf of the Global Governance Institution, and also on behalf of our partner China Forum of the Center for Strategic and Security Studies of Tsinghua University. Thanks all for joining us for this event. Just a few words on top of the events on why we organize the event.

As we all know that the pandemics are certainly not a new occurrence in human history. Just in the past two decades, we have witnessed the 2002 SARS, 2009 H1N1, and 2012 MERS. For all of those pandemics, which are still fresh in our minds, there is no doubt that it is very important to trace their origins in a sense that this will help improve global preparedness in the future. However, sadly, today the COVID-19 origin tracing has become not only a scientific issue, but maybe more evidently a political one. I'm not a scientist, my background is legal. But as a global citizen, the apparent politicization of COVID-19 origin tracing prompts me to ask a few questions to those politicians who politicize it.

I think the first question is: Is the fruit of the big power competition so sweet that they can sacrifice thousands of people's lives, which could have been saved if the urgently needed international cooperation are not hurdled by those competition?

Is the interest of big powers so important that they can trample the overall interests of international community to such an extent that the mankind is losing huge ground in the struggle against pandemic simply because the big powers dominate the agendas setting that is beneficial only to their own countries?

And is the conscience of big power so cheap that they can sell it easily and conveniently to purchase misinformation? I mean misinformation that caused huge waste of resources, and deviated, deflected, original tracing of COVID-19 from correct track of science?

We have heard so many lies of those politicians. So today, let's listen to the scientist. Let's put this critical scientific task back in the hand of scientists, let's keep our shared identity as global citizens and forget about our national or ideological identities, and let's unite instead of compete.

For our Global Governance Institution, one of the fundamental value is to rely on subject matter experts to promote global governance. And today, this event is aimed to raise public awareness, penetrate lies and misinformation, and finally, re-collaborate the trace of the origin of COVID-19 so as to save mankind from future pandemics. To achieve this mission, today we are joined by a group of great scientists and scholars to help us get back to the right track of fighting against pandemic. Without further delay, let me give the floor to my co-host, Madame Liu Xin, who is a China Forum expert, as well as a renowned CGTN host and journalist, she will introduce the speakers and moderate the discussions, Liu Xin the floor is yours.

朋友们上午好/下午好/晚上好。我是田士臣，经士智库的创始人、总裁，我们士智库是一个总部位于中国的独立国际智库。因疫情原因，本次“疫情溯源国际对话会”采用线上方式举行。我代表经士智库和合作伙伴清华大学战略与安全研究中心中国论坛，感谢大家参加这次活动。在此，我想先说一下我们为什么要组织此次活动。

众所周知，流行病在人类历史上肯定不是一个新鲜事。在过去的20年里。我们已经经历了2002年非典（SARS）、2009年甲型流感病毒（H1N1）和2012年中东呼吸综合征（MERS）。对于所有这些大流行病，我们仍然记忆犹新，毫无疑问，研究它们的起源是非常重要的。溯源的意义在于提高全球对未来传染病大流行的准备。但可悲的是，今天新冠（COVID-19）溯源已不仅是一个科学问题，可能更明显的是一个政治问题。我不是一个科学家，我的背景是法律。但作为一个地球村的公民，新冠溯源已明显政治化，这促使我向那些将其政治化的政客提出几个问题：

我想提出的第一个问题是：

1. 大国竞争的果实是否真的如此甜美以至于他们可以牺牲成千上万的本可以被拯救的生命？如果急需的国际合作不被这些大国竞争所阻碍，这些生命本可被挽救；

2. 大国的利益是否如此重要以至于他们可以践踏国际社会的共同利益从而导致人类在对抗疫情的斗争中节节败退？而这场失败只是因为大国主导了仅仅对他们自己有利的议程设置；

3. 大国的良心是否如此廉价以至于他们可以轻易和迅捷的出卖良心换取虚假信息？这种出卖良心的交换浪费了大量公共资源，使新冠溯源偏离/脱离了科学的正确轨道。

我们已经听过了那些政客太多的谎言。所以，今天就让我们听听科学家的声音，让这个重要的科学课题重回科学，把这个关键任务再交回到科学家手中！

让我们大家保留“全球公民”这一共同身份，暂时忘记我们的国家或意识形态标签！

让我们团结起来而不是斗得你死我活！

我们经士智库的基本理念就是依靠专家的力量来推进全球治理。今天，这个活动的目的就是要提高公众意识、戳穿谎言和虚假信息，通过重新精确校准让新冠疫情真正能够保护人类免受未来大流行病侵扰。为实现这一使命，今天，我们欢迎一些伟大的科学家和专业学者出席我们对话会，带领我们重归抗疫正轨。不再耽搁时间了，让我把发言权交给我的共同主持人刘欣女士，她是中国论坛专家，也是著名的CGTN主持人、记者。她将介绍主讲人并主持此次讨论。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much Shichen. I have to clarify, I have no medical or science background. But I'm here as someone who is extremely interested in this subject. From a journalistic point of view, as we all know, the subject has been in the news for so long. And somehow what you hear from the scientific community and what you hear from the media have been very different. And that is why I'm extremely curious to find out exactly what scientists have to say when they don't have the limitation of you know, having to give a few seconds of soundbites. That is why we I'm very interested and very pleased to be able to moderate this panel on how to avoid politicization; how to let science prevail in this very important work of tracing the origins of COVID-19. I think it is almost useless, unnecessary, I would say, to introduce the background of this whole thing. But as we are going live in China and abroad, I think it is necessary to remind people the few key points, or dates, let's say as to how we have come this far, and what are the important questions we have to try to answer going forward. So the whole idea of trying to look for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 which is the virus that causes COVID-19, is to help people better understand exactly how the pandemic developed, how it emerged, and in order to help improve the global preparedness, so that in the future, when we are faced with another possible pandemic of a virus that could be very infectious and very deadly, we have a better response, hopefully collectively. So such work has been carried out in the past with the help and the dedication of scientists, but mostly away from the public spotlight. You know, people spend years in the fields or in the lab, away from public spotlight, and they are able to make progress and even breakthrough in their work. And yet, the tracing of the origins of COVID-19 has been particularly contentious and has actually become a political debate somehow, the whole idea of the idea of a lab leak hypothesis was first amplified, I would say by former US President Donald Trump in April last year, and also by his former Secretary of State, of course, they talked about having seen credible evidence, but nobody has ever seen and they were not able to table and evidence so far and over a year has passed. Now since the first half of 2021 this year, much more discussion has been directed to this hypothesis. Although at the same time very important work has been done in tracing the origins of COVID-19. We all know that in January and February of this year, a joint mission from China and the World Health Organization conducted very important studies in the city of Wuhan for four weeks, and they came up with a joint report which looks at all possible pathways, how the virus went from its origin to the human population, and they characterize the hypothesis of lab leak as being extremely unlikely. And the more likely option being the virus emerged from nature. And jumped at a certain point from nature via an intermediate host, on to human beings. So that is recommended by all the all the scientists who have participated in that study to be the focus of the future study. And yet, when the recommendations came out, a lot of different voices, different noise came out from different sectors all around the world. Some people calling this report, you know, made under political pressure or that this hypothesis has not been, the lab leak hypothesis has not been given been given adequate consideration, citing, for instance, the number of pages dedicated to this hypothesis in the 120-page report by China and WTO. So, if you read the international media stories, you also get the impression that somehow the scientific community seem also be divided over which option is more likely, you have some kind of open letter signed by over a dozen scientists that's published by the Science Magazine. For instance, scientists arguing that both the lab leak hypothesis and natural origin hypothesis are equally viable and should be given equal, you know, emphasis in the investigation going further. Whereas if you talk to some other scientists, as I have talked to one of the scientists who's in the panel today, the idea is that it's extremely, extremely unlikely that such a virus that the SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from a lab either by human manipulation or by event of an accident. So exactly what is the consensus? What is the more scientific way of looking at this? What are scientists who have dedicated their lives into the subject have to say about this instead of journalists or politicians? That's exactly why we're looking at this.

In this international experts’ dialogue. We have prepared four main framing questions. First of all, how should SARS-CoV-2 origins tracing work be carried out in terms of relevant provisions on the International Health Regulation, IHR, or the relevant WHO charter and World Health Assembly resolutions as well as international norms? Secondly, how to best conduct scientifically rigorous studies and avoid politicization of COVID-19 origins tracing, what has been the biggest stumbling block? How to avoid or at least minimize the impact of misinformation or disinformation. Third, how to balance origins tracing work with the ongoing fight against COVID-19, which continues to pose even increasing global public health challenges as we are seeing at this moment, as a result of the Delta variant. Should there be a priority? And fourth, how to avoid distracting from the most urgent scientific tasks and to promote the effectiveness of international cooperation and collaboration for COVID-19 origins tracing? What has been the biggest lesson or lessons learned so far? Our panel guests will speak from their perspective, but more or less within the framework of these questions, I hope. Without much ado, I have spoken a lot. Without much ado, let's introduce our panel of speakers and I'll introduce them as we go along. By the way, we were going to have eight scientists altogether, including four from China and four from abroad. Unfortunately, one of the Chinese guests became unavailable last minute so Professor Xu Lei from Tsinghua university will not be speaking. We have three Chinese scientists and four scientists from Germany, from the UK, from the United States and from Spain. So indeed, have been looking forward to such an occasion. Let's try to get down to science. Let's say and it is my great honor to introduce our first panel speaker he is academicians, Professor Wu Chung-I. He is a renowned scientist in evolutionary biology and genetics and Yangtze River scholar, chair professor at Sun Yat-sen University in southern China. He was born in Taiwan in 1954, and he graduated from TungHai University in Taiwan with a bachelor's degree in biology in 1976. In 1982, he graduated from the University of British Columbia in Canada with a doctorate in genetics, Professor Wu was elected academicians of the Academia Sinica in Taiwan in 2004. Currently the Yangtze River scholar and the chair professor at Sun Yat-sen University, and also a researcher at the Beijing Institute of genomics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. He was also the chair professor of the Department of Ecology and Evolution of Chicago University. So, Professor Wu Chung-I, the floor is yours, please.

谢谢士臣。必须说下，我没有医学和科学背景。只是因为对这个话题抱有强烈兴趣来到了这里。从媒体的角度来看，我们都知道，溯源已经在新闻中存在了很久。但不知是何原因，你从科学界听到的和你从媒体听到的非常不同。这就是为什么我非常好奇地想知道，当科学家们不受限于简短发言时，他们到底会说些什么。今天非常高兴能够主持讨论，一起探讨科学溯源，避免溯源政治化。

新冠溯源的大背景其实不用我再做介绍，但为了照顾我们在海内外观看直播的观众朋友，还是得梳理下几个关键信息和时间、事情的大概和当下面临的主要问题。

SARS-CoV-2病毒造成了新冠疫情，对新冠病毒溯源有助于人们了解此次疫情是如何发展、如何出现的，并使得在全球准备未来可能应对其他具有高传染性、高致命性的病毒大流行时，我们能有一个更好的应对，但愿是一同携手应对。过去科学家开展溯源工作，大多都远离公众的焦点。他们可能在远离聚光灯的实验室里花费数年时间才取得进展，又或是取得突破。然而，新冠病毒的溯源从一开始就充满争议，实际上已然成为了政治辩论。先是实验室泄漏假说被放大。美国前总统特朗普与前国务卿蓬佩奥在去年4月，声称[该假说]已得到可靠证据，但也从来没有人见过，一年多过去了美国也没能呈现其所谓证据。2021年上半年开始，又有很多讨论矛头开始对向实验室假说，即使同时已经展开了一系列非常重要的新冠溯源工作。

众所周知，在今年的1月和2月，中国和世界卫生组织的联合考察团在武汉市进行了为期四周的重要考察，做出了联合报告。报告探讨了所有可能途径，即病毒如何从其产生到适应人类群体。四种路径中，他们认为实验室泄露假设是“极不可能”的，病毒更有可能从自然界出现，在某一点上从中间宿主过渡到人类。因此，[自然演化]被所有参与该研究的科学家建议为未来研究的重点。然而，该结论意见引起了世界各地不同部门的各种声音。有些人称这份报告是在政治压力下做出的，声称实验室泄漏假说没有得到充分考虑，[他们指的是]中国与世卫120页联合报告中实验室假说的部分。所以，在读过国际媒体的报道后，你也许会认为科学界似乎就哪个病毒起源假说更有可能存在分歧，比如有一份由十几位科学家署名在《科学杂志》上发表的公开信认为实验室泄露假说和自然起源假说同样可行，应给予同等重视。但问过其他科学家后会发现SARS-CoV-2极不可能出自实验室，无论是人造还是泄露，就像我从一位今日同样参会的科学家那里了解到的一样。那么[科学界的]共识到底是什么呢?如何更科学的看待这个问题呢?不是记者，不是政客，那些将毕生精力致力于该领域的科学家们对此又作何看法呢？这就是我们今天国际专家对话会要讨论的内容。为此我们准备了四个主要问题：

首先，新冠溯源工作应如何根据《国际卫生条例》、相关世界卫生组织宪章和世界卫生大会决议以及国际规范进行?

第二，如何最大限度地开展科学严谨的研究，避免疫情溯源政治化？避免或减少虚假信息与不实信息的最大障碍是什么？

第三，如何平衡溯源工作与当下的对抗新冠疫情的斗争？由于德尔塔变种，新冠病毒对全球公共卫生安全挑战持续增加。[溯源与抗疫]是不是该有个先后顺序?

第四，如何避免分散当下急需的科研资源，促进有效的新冠溯源国际合作？迄今为止吸取的最大教训又是什么呢?

希望我们的嘉宾可以在问题框架内从自身角度出发展开讨论。顺便提下，我们原先共有8位科学家，分别来自中国的和海外。遗憾的是，一位中国嘉宾最后无法到场，他清华大学的许磊副教授。此时我们共有三名来自中国的科学家和四位分别来自英国、美国和西班牙的科学家。很期待接下来的讨论，现在让我们来聊聊科学吧，很荣幸为大家介绍我们的第一位主讲人吴仲义教授。

吴仲义教授是进化生物学和遗传学方面的著名科学家，中山大学特聘教授。1954年出生于台湾，1976年毕业于台湾东海大学，获得生物学学士学位。1982年，他从加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚大学毕业，获得遗传学博士学位。2004年，吴教授被选为台湾中央研究院院士。目前还是中国科学院北京基因组学研究所的研究员。他还曾任芝加哥大学生态学和进化系的特聘教授。吴仲义教授，请您发言。

吴仲义（Wu Chung-I）:

Thank you for the invitation. I think I should say that I spend the most the great part of bulk of my career in research Chicago, I've been a professor in the University Chicago for 29 years. So what I want to do, everybody say that, of course, we all understand the question of origin, this is a scientific question. But I want to emphasize the evolutionary perspective, I am an evolution biologist, I have worked on the origin of flies, dogs and rice, simply because I used evolution principles, and I think the virus is no different. In the past, if we deal with something that the origin of SARS-CoV-2, we only have to demonstrate the natural process can reasonably lead to a product like that. But in this climate, we also have to go a step further and say that the natural evolution is the only possible way for such a thing to come about. And this is really like the talk about the origin of universe, that the people who have no background in astrophysics, or physics in general could talk at length about the origin of the universe, we would find it very strange, but people who do not have anything, any background in evolution biology can speak about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The main question is not to show that natural process can lead to it, but actually to show that's the only way to lead to it. And so the main argument is that this SARS-CoV-2 is extremely well adapted to human, and for something to become so adapted to human condition, it has to be a long and tedious process, for one thing, that the product has to be tested in human populations. It just like if you try to release a driverless car, to the society, you cannot expect that your first roll out, the car would perform wonderfully, it has to deal with all sort of the road condition anticipated or unanticipated. And you really work out the bugs, and maybe go through a long process, the driverless car can finally be adapted to the human societies. And the virus, if we look at it from a conceptual point of view, that it's unlikely that you can grab a virus in a sort of lab, the hypothesis brings it back to the lab, and maybe tinker with it with one or two mutations, and then it would become such a pathogen, it's very unlikely. Let me give you the example. We have been looking at the sort of now very famous Delta strain, and we look at it actually has 31 mutations. Now remember Delta string, replace the Alpha string,

It's a simple competition, he just has to do better. But for a virus, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 to be from adaptation to an animal host to human, I would say that 30 mutations would be a very, very low minimum, it probably would require at least two or three times that number. The virus has to go through a very long process to become so extremely well adapted to human conditions. The first thing I want to say is that it's inconceivable either in the lab synthesis, or to take a virus from nature, from any animals and released it into human population and presto, and expected it to sort of burn through human population, I consider that extremely unlikely. And so what we have to do, there are two things. That the first thing is that we have to define the conditions. We invoke The Bind Watchmaker argument that we publish a paper, a group of 20 or so evolution biologists including seven or eight, the most prominent one in China, that we define using The Blind Watchmaker argument to define the conditions under which that such a virus might emerge, and it involves a large population of animal hosts and low-density human population, frequent contact and so on, and herd immunity so step by step and evolve. I think this is important, I think in the last conversation with Madame Liu, I actually said that whoever want to pursue the question of the origin has to propose a model. You cannot just to say “origin”, and if someone wants to search for the origin, someone needs to propose a model, just like you want to catch a crime suspect, you at least have to have some ideas about the general profile, the suspect, you cannot just say “suspect”. We are actually divided. Maybe you don't like this model. Say: well, I don't think so. But everybody has to propose a model, what it looks like. What conditions under which this can emerge. And as far as I know, we are the only one who proposed an explicit model. Right or wrong, we don't know. But if you don't have a model, you cannot start any search. It's meaningless. And I want to make another point, that the new data, new evidence has emerged. And it's somewhat premature to say now. That these new data will probably change drastically how we see this. For example, I mean, they are many, not very credible reports about detection of SARS-CoV-2 in much earlier samples. But recently, they are one or two really believable reports that the variant has existed. And this is not the location unless we have two hours for me to go through the evidence. I just want to say people should not be so confident about what the origin is. I mean, no scientist, I mean, politician can be very sure about what the origin will be. But scientists should be more circumspect about that. So that's the first part, I think that's my view, evolution biology view about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. I want to say something very quickly about the path forward. I think the lab leak hypothesis is such a low probability event for us to spend so much time and energy on this low probability events. We look like a bunch of school kids fighting in the playground, we are not trying to solve anything, we just “you punch me in the nose, I'll kick you in the butt that sort of exchanges”. It's a complete waste of time. The COVID-19 is flaring up again. And delta strain really is a fairly dangerous strain. I think we should concentrate our effort. For example, the vaccination doesn't seem to be doing what we thought it could do. The social distancing hasn’t reached, well has been tested. And treatment has been neglected. We need to define a lot of things. We can resolve this problem. And I would say that at this phase the origin is not urgent problem. If we eradicate COVID-19, then we have decades to work out what or where the origin is, and who should be responsible and so on for that sort of thing. But this is not the time to waste of energy, divert our attention to something of such a low probability. Really like kids fighting that we're not trying to solve anything, we just want to feel good. I think that's an important point. Even I have been interviewed several times, and it's always on this very low probability event. And I have to say that again, that is, we should not spend so much time on lab leak. It's just not a respectable hypothesis. And I think I have said what I want to say. Thank you.

谢谢组织方的邀请。我想应该说我的职业生涯中大部分时间都在芝加哥进行研究，我在芝加哥大学当了近30年的教授（29年确切地说）。当然大家都知道溯源问题是一个科学问题。但我想强调一种演化论的观点，我是一个演化生物学家，我用演化原理研究过苍蝇、狗和水稻的起源，我认为病毒也不例外。在过去，如果我们想研究SARS-CoV-2（新冠病毒）起源，我们只需要证明自然过程可以合理地产生这样的产物，但在当前情况下，我们必须更进一步表明自然演化是新冠病毒产生的唯一可能途径。当没有天体物理学或物理学背景的人开始滔滔不绝地谈论宇宙起源时，我们会感到疑惑，然而现在没有任何演化生物学背景的人都可以大谈SARS-CoV-2（新冠病毒）起源。所以现在最主要的问题不在于要证明自然过程可以衍生新冠病毒，而是要证明这是产生它的唯一途径。

我最重要的论点是，SARS-CoV-2（新冠病毒）非常适应人类，而要让一个东西变得如此适应人体条件，必将是一个漫长又乏味的过程。首先，该产物必须在人类中进行测试。就像如果你向社会推出一款无人驾驶汽车，你不指望第一辆车就就能自己开的好，它必须能处理预期或未预期的种种路况。当把这些问题解决后，也许再经过一个漫长的过程，无人驾驶汽车才能最终适应人类社会。而病毒，我们假设将一个病毒带回实验室，修改一个或两个突变然后它就变成高度适应人类社会的病原体吗？这种假设不太可能。举个例子，我们现在研究的著名德尔塔毒株，我们看到它实际上有31个突变。而德尔塔毒株代替阿尔法毒株只是个单纯的自然选择，它只要比阿尔法毒株[传播力]更强就行了。但是对于一个病毒来说，最初的源代码从适应动物宿主过渡到人类，30个突变将是一个非常非常低的值，它可能需要至少这个数字的二到三倍。所以病毒必须经历一个很长的过程才能变得极为适应人类环境。所以我首先想说的是无论是在实验室合成病毒，还是从自然界动物身上提取再释放到人群中，期望它在人群中迅速蔓延，在我看来都是极不可能的。

我要强调两点：一、我们应首先定义“条件”。在我们发表的一篇论文中（该文由约20名进化生物学家共同撰写，包括7到8个这个领域最著名的进化生物学家），我们援引“盲人钟表匠”观点来定义新冠病毒可能出现的条件。它涉及大量动物宿主和低密度的人群频繁接触等前提，群体免疫力才可能逐步演化。

我认为所有想要研究起源问题的人都必须提出一个模型，你不能光说“溯源”这两个字。就好像想抓个犯罪嫌疑人，至少得在脑海里有个大概嫌疑人轮廓，你不能光说“疑犯”这两个字。而关于某个模型的可靠性，科学家们可能存在分歧，但每个从事溯源研究的人都应建立一个模型以解释在何种何种条件下新冠病毒才可能会出现。据我所知，我们是唯一明确提出具体模型的科学家。不管我的模型对错与否，没有模型根本就无从着手溯源。

二、我想强调新数据、新证据已经出现，现在说[病毒来自哪里]还为时尚早。这些新数据可能会彻底改变我们[对病毒]的看法。过去便有报告表示在早期的样本中检测到SARS-CoV-2（新冠病毒），尽管此前这些报告不太可靠，但近日有一两个确实可信的报告证实早期新冠变种的存在。我只想说，大家不要过早地对新冠发源地那么自信。政客对溯源总是言之凿凿，但我们科学家应该更加谨慎。这就是我对新冠溯源的看法。接下来我想简短谈谈下一步应该怎么走。

我认为消耗大量时间和资源研究实验室泄露假说这种低概率事件就像小孩在操场打架，你一拳我一脚，到头来什么也解决不了。现在新冠肺炎疫情再次抬头。德尔塔毒株确实是一种相当危险的毒株。我认为我们应该集中精力[在抗疫上]。举例来说，现在疫苗似乎没有起到预期效果, 治疗也被忽视了。我想说新冠溯源不是什么紧迫的事情，当我们战胜疫情后，我们可以花个几十年去溯源，谁该负什么责任等等，但现在不是浪费精力，将注意力转移到这种极小概率事件上的时候。小孩打架解决不了实质性问题，只是为了爽。我已经被采访几次了，老是围绕着[实验室泄露]这个概率很低的事件。我必须重申，我们不应该在实验室泄露上浪费太多时间，这不是什么可信的假说。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you so much academicians. I hope we are able to focus more on the real science during this panel. However, we have to clear the noises out of the way. Hopefully, let me introduce our next speaker, Professor Shi Weifeng. He is a professor of neurology and director of Shandong key laboratory of etiology and epidemiology of emerging infectious disease of China. Now he obtained his PhD biological information from the National University of Ireland in June 2012 and was promoted to Professor in April 2014, and the Director of the epidemiology laboratory of emerging diseases in Shandong Province in 2015. He’s also a guest associate editor for The Journal of frontiers in microbiology, and has published numerous articles in the fields of microbiology, virology and prevention of infectious diseases. Since 2016. He has been engaged in scientific researchers studying the key molecules of emergencies and emerging diseases including influenza a virus and Ebola. Professor Shi, the floor is yours.

非常感谢各位院士。希望在这次讨论会上，我们能够更多关注真正的科学。当然，我们必须清除各种障碍物。现在我来介绍下一位演讲者，史卫峰教授。他是一位神经内科教授，任山东省新发传染病病原学与流行病学重点实验室主任。2012年6月获得爱尔兰国立大学生物学信息学博士学位，2014年4月晋升为教授，2015年担任山东省新发疾病流行病学实验室主任。他还是The Journal of Frontiers in Microbiology的客座副主编，在微生物学、病毒学和传染病预防领域发表了多篇文章。自2016年以来。他一直从事科研工作，研究紧急情况和新发疾病的关键分子，包括甲型流感病毒和埃博拉病毒。史教授，话筒交给你了。

史卫峰（Shi Weifeng）:

Hello, everyone, thank you for having me here. And my name is Shi Weifeng and I from Stanford Medical University. My group was involved in the discovery of the causative agent of COVID-19. And we have performing genomic civilians of this virus in China and across the world. In fact, since the first reports of SARS-2 in December 2019, in Wuhan, China, there has been extreme interest in understanding how this virus emerged in the human population. Recent debate has coalesced around the two competing ideas, a lab leak scenario and zoonotic emerges. Today, I would like to share the scientific evidence that may help clarify the origin of this virus.

My first point is that SARS-2 is from nature is the conREsensus of a global scientific community. Shortly after the identification of this virus, several world’s known scientists analyzed the genomes of this virus and found that it had two unique genetic characterizations. First, there are six amino acid positions which are extremely important for the attachment of SARS and SARS-2 is different from SARS in five of these six positions. In particular, SARS-2 has a higher finding efficiency to the human AC to researchers and service sector there the 12-nucleotide instruction at the cleavage aside of the spike gene analysis tool. This included four amino acids, PRI. PRI can be recognized by protease theory. Some scientists believe that this G assertion, could potentially enhance the pathogenesis of SARS-2. However, from the very beginning of the pandemic, there has been a conspiracy theory. Some politicians in western countries believes in this hypothesis. They believe that the two unique genetic characterizations of SARS-2 are genetically manipulated. However, different groups subsequently reported several coronaviruses from Cambodians. In particular, some of Cambodian-derived coronaviruses shared the same amino acids as those six important positions as Coronavirus II. It should be noted that these wild Cambodians were smuggled from Southeast Asia and were caught at the custom in 2019. In addition, two bat coronaviruses from Cambodia share five of the six amino acid residues. This evidence suggests that there are coronaviruses from wider Cambodia and bat that are able to punch through human ACU two receptors with very high efficiency. At the same time, from our bat sample collected from Yunnan in May 2019, we identified a novel Coronavirus. This virus had a similar indolent event add to the cleavage site of the spike gene. Subsequently, a bat coronavirus from Thailand was also found to process similar in their pattern. Although there's insertion patterns are not exactly the same as SARS Coronavirus II. It’s suggested that such indole events can happen in nature.

Just a short summary. The so-called unique genetic characterization of SARS-Coronavirus-2 have been found in coronaviruses from wild animals. Last month, 21 top virologists working on virus evolution published online a critical review. They contend that there is a substantial body of scientific evidence supporting our zoonotic origin of SARS-Cov-2. Notably, these top virologists are from seven countries, such as Australia, the US, and the UK. They also belong to 22 different affiliations. Therefore, that SARS II is from nature is a consensus of global scientific community. This is my first point.

The second point I would like to share is that there's no scientific evidence of lab leak. We also read through the report supporting the lab-leak hypotheses. However, most of the preprints and are not peer reviewed. So they are not reliable. Only very few of them are formally published. However, none of them are research articles and the none of them provide scientific evidence to support their statements. Therefore, there's no evidence to support the lab-leak hypothesis. While the possibility of the laboratory accident cannot be entirely dismissed, it may be near impossible to falsify. In July, correspondence was published in the latest journal, the authors are a group of top virologists. They said that science rather than speculation is essential to determine how this virus reached humans.

The last point I will share is that it is estimated that there would be more than half remaining, undiscovered viruses in nature that are able to infect the mammals and even humans, because these viruses are everywhere on the earth. We believe that viruses are enemies of all human beings and the enemies of all countries. However, unfortunately, the number of viruses that the scientists have known is just about two thousand only with a few hundred viruses that that can infect humans. So, it just represents a very tiny proportion when compared to the estimated number of viruses. Therefore, we really need international scientific collaboration and cooperation to prevent and control emerging infectious disease. That's all thank you for your attention.

大家好，谢谢你们邀请我。我是史卫峰，来自山东第一医科大学。我的小组参与了COVID-19病原体的发现。我们已经在中国和世界各地对这种病毒进行了基因测试。事实上，自2019年12月中国武汉首次报告SARS II以来，人们对了解这种病毒是如何在人群中出现的极为感兴趣。最近的辩论围绕着两个相互竞争的观点，一个是实验室泄漏的观点，另一个是动物传染人的观点。今天，我想与大家分享一些有助于澄清这一病毒起源的科学证据。

我的第一个观点是，SARS II来自大自然，这是全球科学界的共识。在发现这种病毒后不久，一些世界知名的科学家分析了这种病毒的基因组，发现它有两个独特的遗传特征。首先，有六个氨基酸位置对SARS的附着非常重要，而SARS II和SARS在这六个位置中的五个不同。特别是，SARS II对人类AC的发现效率更高，对于研究人员和服务部门来说，在刺突基因分析工具的裂解旁边有12个核苷酸指令。其中包括四种氨基酸，PRI。PRI可以被蛋白酶理论所识别。一些科学家认为，这种G断言可能会增强SARS II的发病机制。

然而，从疫情一开始，就有一种阴谋论。一些西方国家的政治家相信这一假说。他们认为，SARS II的两个独特基因特征是由基因操纵的。然而，不同的小组随后报告了来自柬埔寨(这里应该是一个什么动物的名字)的几种冠状病毒。特别是，一些柬埔寨衍生的冠状病毒与冠状病毒II的6个重要部位具有相同的氨基酸。值得注意的是，这些野生柬埔寨动物是从东南亚走私过来的，2019年在海关被抓获。此外，来自柬埔寨的两种蝙蝠冠状病毒共享6个氨基酸残基中的5个。这一证据表明，来自更广泛的柬埔寨和蝙蝠的冠状病毒能够非常高效地穿透人类ACU 2受体。与此同时，我们在2019年5月从云南采集的蝙蝠样本中发现了一种新型冠状病毒。这种病毒有一个类似的惰性事件添加到刺突基因的裂解位点。随后，一种来自泰国的蝙蝠冠状病毒也被发现以类似的模式处理。尽管插入模式与SARS Cov-II不完全相同。这表明这种吲哚事件在自然界中也会发生。

简短的总结一下。在野生动物的冠状病毒中已经发现了所谓的SARS Cov- II的独特遗传特征。上个月，21位从事病毒进化研究的顶级病毒学家在网上发表了一篇批评性评论。他们认为，有大量的科学证据支持SARS冠状病毒II的人畜共患病起源。值得注意的是，这些顶级病毒学家来自7个国家，如澳大利亚、美国和英国。他们还属于22个不同的组织。因此，“SARS II来自大自然”是全球科学界的共识。这是我想说的第一个点。

我想分享的第二点是，没有科学证据表明实验室泄漏。我们阅读了支持实验室泄漏假设的报告。然而，大多数都是预印本，并没有经过同行评审。所以他们并不可靠。只有很少一部分被正式出版。然而，它们都不是研究文章，也没有提供科学证据来支持自己的陈述。因此，没有证据支持实验室泄漏的假设。虽然不能完全排除实验室事故的可能性，但要想证明这一假说几乎是不可能的。7月，一篇通讯发表在最新一期杂志上，作者是几位顶尖病毒学家。他们说，要确定这种病毒是如何传染给人类的，关键是靠科学，而不是靠猜测。

我想说的最后一点是，据估计自然界中有一半以上的未被发现的病毒能够感染哺乳动物甚至人类，因为这些病毒在地球上无处不在。因此，我们认为，病毒是全人类的敌人，是各国的敌人。然而，不幸的是，科学家们已经知道的病毒数量只有大约2000种，其中只有几百种病毒可以感染人类。所以，与估计的病毒数量相比，它只占很小的比例。因此，我们非常需要国际间的科学合作来预防和控制新出现的传染病。谢谢大家。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much. Professor Shi. Although I'm not a science major, I understood what you were saying. You were giving evidence that some of the features in the SARS Cov-II, although alleged to have been the result of lab manipulation, have actually been found in wild animals, as well as some of the wild animals were actually found in areas outside of China in Southeast Asia for instance. So maybe more attention should be given in that direction. Thank you very much, Professor Shi. Next let me go to Professor Peter foster from Cambridge, UK. I would like to welcome you and give our audiences a brief introduction of our next guest, who is fellow of the MacDonald Institute for archaeology, archaeological research of the University of Cambridge, UK. Professor Peter Foster's research concerns the molecular population genetics of humans. He was born in 1967. He studied chemistry at the universities of Kiel and Hamburg. He specialized in genetics at the highness PETA Institute of virology and immunology, in Hamburg, and he received his PhD in biology in 1987. After postdoctoral research at the Institute of legal medicine in Muenster until 1999, he was appointed research fellow at the MacDonald Institute for archaeological research in Cambridge until 2006. In the same period, he became a founding member of the interdisciplinary, younger Academy in Berlin, from 2006 to 2009. He was a university Senior Lecturer in forensics, and life sciences. He's currently Director of Research at the Institute for forensic genetics in Muenster, Germany, is also fellow of the McDonnell Institute, as I said, and he's also an editor of the International Journal of legal medicine. Professor Forster, the floor is yours, please.

非常感谢史教授。您给的证据表明,尽管有声称关于实验室泄露的言论，但一些SARS II的特性已经被发现存在于野生动物身上，而发现的一些野生动物实际上是在东南亚在中国以外的地区。所以这个方向也许应该得到更多的关注。

接下来的嘉宾是来自英国剑桥的彼得·福斯特教授。他是英国剑桥麦克唐纳考古研究所的研究员。彼得·福斯特教授的研究涉及人类的分子群体遗传学。他生于1967年，曾在基尔大学和汉堡大学学习化学。他在汉堡的PETA病毒学和免疫学研究所专攻遗传学，并于1987年获得生物学博士学位。他在明斯特的法律医学研究所做博士后研究一直到1999年。之后，他被任命为剑桥麦克唐纳研究所的考古学研究员，一直到2006年。2006年至2009年，他成为柏林跨学科青年学院的创始成员，也是大学里法医和生命科学的高级讲师。他目前是德国明斯特法医遗传学研究所的研究主任，也是麦克唐奈研究所的研究员。他还是国际法律医学杂志的编辑。福斯特教授，请您发言。

彼得·福斯特（Peter Foster）:

Let me first clarify my research was conducted at Cambridge University, but I'm speaking in a private capacity. My name is Peter Forster. And my teams in Germany and in Cambridge, have since 1995 use a new type of genetic analysis method to trace and to date in absolute time, the prehistoric human colonization of the world from an African origin in the past 60,000 years. We've succeeded in this by introducing a novel mathematical method, which we call a media network method. And this successfully clarified relationships between genomes and for the first time. In January 2020, when I first heard of the new Coronavirus, I immediately realized we could trace the origin and development of the Coronavirus using the same media network methods as in anthropology. So, in our April 2020 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, we identified the ancestral human Coronavirus type, by comparison with bat coronaviruses. We named this original human virus type A. And we also described a predominant descendant type, which we called B. Now unbeknown to us, a Chinese research team at Peking University had already published a very similar result in March 2020, so one month before. And this is very good because it means an independent European team and an independent Chinese research team have reached the same conclusion. So that is very satisfactory in science.

Using this analysis, we distinguished three levels of origin of the virus. at the earliest level is the transmission of the Coronavirus from animal to human. As we've heard in the previous speakers, the closest known bad Coronavirus, differs little from the current Coronavirus by only 4% of the genome. And that corresponds to a maximum of 50 years of separation, according to the mutation rate we measured. Now, these 50 years is only a maximum estimate, because we probably have not yet found the most closely related bat population, as the previous speaker indicated. Furthermore, the bats and the first patients live in the same geographical region. The animal human transmission must have happened quite recently, in my view, possibly as recently as 2019. And the exact transmission mechanism is under investigation by Chinese researchers for some years in fact, so in 2015 The team of Shi Zhengli and colleagues, surveyed villagers in Yunnan Province, who were living near bad caves, caves full of bats. And this team found that 3% of these villages had antibodies against bad coronaviruses. And this evidently was occurring through natural transmission for animal to human. The second level concerns the geographical origin and spread of the symptomatic virus within China. What I did, and also for this talk, I examined available genome sequences, and are also examine the clinical histories of the early patients. Now, I'll show you a first map a slide with the share screen function, I hope. So here you should be able to see a map which says SARS Cov-II occurrence of ancestral A, and derive B types from December 2019 until mid-January 2020.

In this map, this shows where the original ancestral A types and the derived B types were detected in patients until mid-January 2020. The patient numbers are very low at this early stage. The black pie slices are the early, original A type, and the white portions are the derived younger B types. So, although we have very few samples at this very early stage until mid-January 2020, so only 34 B types, and seven A types, it is clear that the A types are very rare in Wuhan, and in Hubei Province, only one in 29 patients have the original A type. In contrast, there are more A types detected in southern China. So this makes Wu Han a less likely source. Now in the next map, this is one week later, the sample sizes are still very small. So now we have 61 B types and 22 original A types. But it is clear that the A and B types in this week later are spreading in parallel across China. Remember that Wu Han had mainly B types up to the previous week. And this suggests that Wu Han is not the major source of the epidemic. If Wu Han had been the source, we would have expected a spread of only on mainly B types. But instead, what we see here is a mix of black and white spreading a mix of A and B types spreading. This is not easily explained by a spread from Wuhan.

At the third level, we can ask where the current global variants come from. These global variants we all know Alpha, Beta Gamma Delta. In our original network analysis in April 2020, we had noticed that B types, including a so-called B-1 type were behaving apparently. You can see that in the statistical analysis this B-1 type is behaving differently. And that is predictive of the rapid spread of B-1 in 2020 from Asia to Europe and then worldwide. Several months later, the Los Angeles National Laboratory in the USA confirmed that this B-1 type causes a higher viral load in patients than non B-1 types. Our network analysis can therefore be a valuable tool for guiding clinical research. You can see at an early stage statistically that a virus is behaving or a variant is behaving differently.

To summarize, our work provides preliminary evidence that first, the animal human transmission occurred relatively recently, and possibly as recently as 2019. Secondly, the pattern of spread of the ancestral A, and descendant B types, argues against a Wu Han or who by origin, whereas more ancestral types were detected in southern China. Thirdly, a single aberrant Asian B-1 ancestor gave rise to the current global variants alpha, beta, gamma, and delta.

I thank you for your attention. And if you're interested in a fuller account of our research, see the website of the Cambridge Philosophical Society where I have a longer lecture on the subject.

非常感谢。首先我要说明的是，我的研究是在剑桥大学进行的，但我是个人身份发言的。谢谢你们邀请我在这个视频会议上发言。我叫彼得·福斯特，我在德国和剑桥的团队从1995年开始使用一种新的基因分析方法来追溯和确定在过去的6万年里，史前人类从非洲开始殖民整个世界的绝对时间。我们通过引入一种新的数学方法成功地做到了这一点，我们称之为媒体网络方法。这首次成功地澄清了基因组之间的关系。所以在2020年1月，当我第一次听说这种新型冠状病毒时，我立刻意识到我们可以用与人类学相同的媒体网络方法来追溯冠状病毒的起源和发展。因此，在我们2020年4月发表于《美国国家科学院院刊》(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA)上的论文中，我们通过与蝙蝠冠状病毒的比较，确定了人类祖先的冠状病毒类型。我们将这种原始人类病毒命名为A型，我们还描述了一种主要的后代病毒，我们称之为B型。而当时其实北京大学的一个中国研究团队已经在2020年3月发表了一个非常相似的结果，在我们的一个月前。这很棒，因为这意味着一个独立的欧洲团队和一个独立的中国研究团队已经得出了相同的结论。这在科学上是非常令人满意的。

通过这个分析，我们区分了病毒的三级来源。最早的一个级别是冠状病毒从动物传播给人类。正如我们在前面的发言者中听到的，最接近已知的蝙蝠冠状病毒与目前的乌玛冠状病毒的基因组相差无几，只有4%的差别。根据我们测量的突变率，这相当于最长50年的分离。现在，这50年只是一个最大的估计，因为我们可能还没有找到最接近的蝙蝠种群，正如前面的发言者指出的那样。此外，这些蝙蝠和第一批患者生活在同一个地理区域。所以在我看来，动物和人类之间的传播一定是最近发生的，可能是在2019年。事实上，中国的研究人员已经对其确切的传播机制进行了多年的研究。在2015年，Li Xizhang和其团队调查了云南省的村民。当时他们住在蝙蝠洞穴附近。这个团队发现，这些村庄中3%的村民有对抗蝙蝠冠状病毒的抗体。这显然是动物向人类的自然传播。

第二个级别的来源涉及有症状病毒在中国的地理来源和传播。我检查了可用的基因组序列，也检查了早期病人的临床病史。现在，我将给你们展示第一张地图，上面说SARS冠状病毒出现了祖先A，并从2019年12月到2020年1月中旬发展出B类型。

在这张地图显示，原始祖先的A型和衍生的B型直到2020年1月中旬在病人身上被检测到。早期的病人数量非常少。这些黑色的部分是早期的A型，白色的部分是派生的年轻的B型。虽然在直到2020年1月中旬这个非常早期的阶段我们很少有样品，只有34个B类型病毒和7个A类型病毒，但很明显，A型在武汉非常罕见，在湖北省，29例患者中只有1例具有原始A型。相比之下，在中国南方发现了更多的A类型。因此，武汉不太可能是源头。在下一张图中，这是一周后，样本量仍然很小。这个时候我们有61种B型和22种原始的A型。但我们很清楚地知道，在那一周的晚些时候，A型和B型病毒将在中国平行蔓延。要注意的是，一直到前一周，武汉主要都是B型病毒。这说明武汉并不是疫情的主要源头。如果武汉是传染源，那么我们应当看到传播的主要是B型病毒。但我们在这里看到的是黑白部分混合的传播，也就是A和B类型的混合传播。所以这个很难被解释为病毒的传染源头是武汉。

在第三个层面，我们可以看一看当前的全球的病毒变异体来自于哪里。这些变异体包括我们所知道的阿尔法、贝塔、伽马、德尔塔。在2020年4月的原始网络分析中，我们已经注意到B型，包括所谓的B-1型表现明显。从统计分析中可以看出这一类型的人表现不同。这预示着B-1型病毒在2020年从亚洲迅速传播到欧洲，然后蔓延到全世界。几个月后，美国洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室证实，这种B-1型比非B-1型引起患者更高的病毒载量。

因此，我们的网络分析可以成为指导临床研究的有价值的工具。你可以看到在早期的统计阶段病毒或变种的行为是不同的。总而言之，我们的工作提供了初步证据，首先，动物人间传播发生的时间相对较近，可能最晚在2019年。其次，原始A型和后代B型的传播模式，反驳了武汉起源说，而更多的原始A类型在中国南方被发现。第三，单个异常的亚洲B-1病毒产生了目前的全球变体阿尔法、贝塔、伽马和德尔塔。谢谢大家的关注。如果你对我们的研究有兴趣，可以浏览剑桥哲学协会的网站，在那里我有一个关于这个主题的更长的讲座。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much, Professor Forster. I think you have tried your best and very effectively to illustrate some very sophisticated scientific work. Without a scientific background, I seem to have been able to understand you, and your summary has been clear enough. Very interesting study, and now open the floor later for discussion on these, I'm sure. Next, let me introduce our next speaker, Professor Jonathan Stoye, he is group leader of the retrovirus-host interactions laboratory of the Francis Crick Institute. I've heard you are a real cool head so I'm really looking forward to your presentation. But a brief bio here, Jonathan was born in Oxford and studied a BA degree in Natural Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He then worked as a technician for five years in Basel, Switzerland before embarking on research, supervised by Christopher Moroni, leading to a PhD from the University of Basel. Next, he joined the John Coffins lab in Boston, USA, spending seven years as a research associate before returning to the UK with an appointment at the MRC, National Institute for Medical Research. Since 2015. He has been a senior group leader at the Francis Crick Institute. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 2017. Professor Stoye, you have the mic.

非常感谢，福斯特教授。我认为你已经尽了最大努力，非常有效地阐述了一些非常复杂的科学工作。没有科学背景的我似乎已经能理解你，你的总结已经足够清楚。非常有趣的研究， 我相信大家可以讨论这些问题。接下来，让我介绍下一位演讲者，乔纳森·斯托耶教授，他是弗朗西斯·克里克研究所逆转录病毒宿主相互作用实验室的组长。我听说是一个很有魅力的领导，所以我很期待你的报告。乔纳森出生在牛津，在剑桥大学获得自然科学学士学位。之后，他在瑞士巴塞尔做了5年的技术员，然后在克里斯托弗·马拉尼的指导下开始了研究，最终获得了巴塞尔大学的博士学位。随后，他加入了美国波士顿的约翰·科芬斯实验室，在返回英国之前担任了7年的助理研究员，在英国国家医学研究所(MRC)任职。自2015年以来。他是弗朗西斯克里克研究所的高级组长。2017年，他当选为英国皇家学会院士。斯托耶教授，拿好你的麦克风。

乔纳森·斯托耶（Jonathan Stoye）:

Good afternoon from London. My name is Jonathan Stoye. I'm a virologist at the Francis Crick Institute, and like people before me, I'm speaking on my personal behalf and not on the behalf of the Institute. Why am I here today? I strongly believe we need to uncover the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, not to pass judgment on previous events, but rather to learn for the future and to put in place improved mechanisms for Coronavirus violence and for recognizing and responding to new disease. I'm not the Coronavirus specialist, so one might ask what qualifies me to offer an opinion on this subject. I would counter that I have considerable experience in working with retroviruses, and for many years have studied the replication, recombination, and cross species transmission of this group of viruses, as well as host defenses to infection. And I believe it's experiences of direct relevance to understanding such processes for other viruses. So, what are the precedents for other viruses tell us about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 Well, over the last 50 years or so, there have been numerous examples of cross species transmission of infectious agents from one species to another, leading to new diseases in humans. And AIDS is perhaps the outstanding example of that. Given the frequency at which these novel diseases they emerge, it seems highly likely that there will be a continuous and perhaps increasing flood of viruses crossing species barriers and posing new threats. Sometimes viruses appear to move essentially unchanged from one species to another. Sometimes a variety of genetic changes occur to allow adaptation of the novel host. One important lesson we learned for the study of these diseases is that establishing animal origins can take an awful long time. For example, it took nearly 15 years to show that HIV-1 came from chimpanzees. We currently recognize seven human coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-2, five of these viruses seem likely to originate from different species of bats, the other two from rodents. I would also add that there are multiple accounts of animal to human spillover events, including a recent report of an alpha Coronavirus of dog origin in a patient with pneumonia. These not apparently resulted in Widespread human to human transmission but have the potential to do so. And these observations underscore the public health threat of coronaviruses. In trying to learn about the origin of SARS-CoV-2, it's helpful to examine more closely the relationship between bat coronaviruses and SARS-1, a couple of facts are pertinent. First, a wide variety of different coronaviruses have been identified in bats, but none is completely identical to SARS-1 in sequence over its entire length. Rather, it seems to be a mosaic formed between different viruses native to horseshoe bats. Second, such a recombinant virus seems to be present in civets. Together, they employ an origin for SARS-1, involving recombination between different bat viruses, followed by transfer to civets and subsequent transmission to humans. It seems reasonable to suppose that SARS-2 was formed in the same way. But these same studies also point to difficulties in establishing a definitive origin for SARS-CoV-2 first there appears to be an endless variety of bat coronaviruses, any of which might contribute to the generation of SARS-CoV-2, to say nothing of potential future threats, such as the possible SARS-3 virus. Second would be the need to identify a host that might act as an intermediate between bats and human, serving both to allow further adaptation of bat, recombinant, as well as transfer of the virus from its original source into humans.

So what do we really know about the origin of SARS-2? I think everyone agrees that the virus first showed widespread person to person transmission in Wu Han and China at the end of 2019. Otherwise, there's considerable uncertainty about its origins. The closest natural variant identified shows more than 3% sequence diversions, corresponding to at least 900 nucleotide differences, and was isolated from a sample taken from a bat more than 1000 kilometers from Wu Han. So how did the virus change and how did it travel? The most straightforward hypothesis is the virus was formed by recombination between two or more so far unidentified viruses, probably in a horseshoe bat. This virus, then infected a human or other animal and transmitted to Wu Han before sustained transmission started. The problem here is that neither original nor intermediate host has yet been defined. I do not find it surprising, given the scale of the problem, but others have been quick to advance alternative theories. These theories are hard to disprove. But simply denying that truth merely serves to harden positions, and poisons relationships between different organizations and countries. It is indisputable that there are one or more labs in Wuhan working with bat coronaviruses or bat parasites, and in at least one case performing a gain of function experiments. It's also true that virus escape from supposedly secure labs has occurred on different occasions in several countries. So, it does not seem unreasonable to ask the question whether it had occurred in this case. Simply denying this possibility does not help resolve the question. A thorough lab audit conducted in the early stages of the investigation with a group who is experienced in such matters, given the opportunity to examine overlap records and to have discussions with all staff might well have solved this problem. I suspect it would still be a benefit. I consider less reasonable or given the sequence of the SARS-II virus and other known Coronavirus is to advance speculative theories that virus has been purposely manipulated at the moment such ideas simply found the fires of controversy. It has been suggested by some that fully infectious SARS-II was present in humans prior to December 2019 in other parts of the world, either by spillover from another animal source, or perhaps as a result of escape from research laboratories. Transfer to Wu Han might then have occurred via food chains. However, all these theories seem relatively unlikely given the absence of significant outbreaks of COVID-19 disease elsewhere. Notably, most of the scientific evidence put forward for these ideas is weak. In the future, we need to be more robust in drawing conclusions from flawed data. For example, PCR experiments, where only one out of three reactions gave a positive signal or serology that might be explained by cross reactivity to another Coronavirus infection. What can we hope for in the future? My vision or perhaps you could label it my dream has two major features:

First is a detailed catalogue of viruses with zoonotic potential accompanied with enhanced surveillance for various transfer of the animal human interface.

Second, systems for more rapid reporting and response to new infections should be developed. Arguably, responses to COVID-19 were too slow for all parties involved. We've learned much from the from the current pandemic with regard to containment measures. more rapid dissemination of early warnings would facilitate responses, for example, through development of rapid PCR diagnostic tests to future emergencies. But where do we stand now? The report of phase one of the WHO convened study has been published, a number of reasonable suggestions for further studies have been put forward, including searches for more SARS related viruses, or surveys of additional possible intermediate hosts. However, little real progress has been made in limiting the scope of the inquiry. And it seems that trust between the various parties has all but evaporated. There seem to be serious differences of opinion between WHO and the Chinese government about areas of investigation deserving attention. Meanwhile, we're also waiting for a report from the US intelligence agencies on their assessment of the competing origin theories, though I don't think we'll learn very much from that. So, we left at something of an impasse: How can we move forward? We need to clarify and clearly identify the original source of SARS-2 and how it reached Wu Han. This will require the combined efforts of multiple people coupled with openness and a willingness to accept facts. However, it may not be possible until we restore trust between the various players involved. I do appreciate that this is much more easily said than done. But one thing which might facilitate this work is a better specific understanding of the science involved. A second thing would be the development of detailed hypotheses, as well as very specific criteria to assess these rather than simply relying on mass surveys. For example, reports of serological reactivity must account for the problems of cross reactivity. And I would like to ask whether it be possible to develop immunological assays that would identify reactivity with a unique feature of SARS-2, such as the furin cleavage site. Similarly, any suggestions of virus manipulation must be accompanied with precise hypotheses about the starting nature of the virus manipulated, coupled with details about how and why any changes are accomplished. Eliminating distracting areas of investigation in a way that has not yet been accomplished, needs to be an important part of the process. Because we need to move with speed. I would simply know that it took nearly a year for the WHO visit to Wu Han. The next pandemic, maybe just around the corner, and we need to put such processes in place now. I have one final suggestion. I wonder whether it might be possible to set up a world Coronavirus Center to try to answer some of the questions were asking. It could be modeled on the World Influenza Center and fall under the umbrella of the WHO but operate independently. It will also address some of the more general surveillance issues for the future. Thank you.

我在伦敦问大家下午好。我叫乔纳森·斯托耶，是弗朗西斯克里克研究所的病毒学家，和之前的嘉宾一样，我是以我个人的名义而不是以研究所的名义发言。那么。我今天为什么在这里? 我坚信，我们需要揭开COVID-19大流行的根源，不是对以前的事件作出判断，而是为未来汲取教训，并建立完善的机制，应对冠状病毒暴力行为，识别和应对新疾病。既然我不是冠状病毒专家，所以有人可能会问，我有什么资格在这个问题上发表意见？我要反驳说，我在研究逆转录病毒方面有相当丰富的经验，多年来一直在研究这类病毒的复制、重组和跨物种传播，以及宿主对感染的防御。我相信这是与理解其他病毒的过程直接相关的经验。那么，关于SARS-CoV-2的起源，其他病毒的先例告诉了我们什么?在过去50年左右的时间里，有很多例子证明了传染性病原体从一个物种传播到另一个物种，给人类带来了新的疾病。艾滋病就是一个很好的例子。考虑到这些新疾病出现的频率，似乎很有可能会有持续的、也许是越来越多的病毒跨越物种屏障，并造成新的威胁。有时，病毒似乎基本不变地从一个物种传播到另一个物种。有时会发生各种遗传变化以使新宿主适应。我们从这些疾病的研究中得到的一个重要教训是，确定动物的起源可能需要很长时间。例如，用了将近15年的时间才证明HIV-1病毒来自黑猩猩。我们目前识别出7种人类冠状病毒，包括SARS-CoV-2，其中5种病毒似乎来自不同种类的蝙蝠，另外两种来自啮齿动物。我还想补充说，关于动物到人类的溢出事件有多种说法，包括最近的一份报告，称一名肺炎患者感染了源自狗的阿尔法冠状病毒。这些显然没有导致广泛的人际传播，但有可能这样做。这些观察结果强调了冠状病毒对公共卫生的威胁。为了了解SARS-CoV-2的起源，更密切地检查蝙蝠冠状病毒和SARS-1之间的关系是有帮助的，有几个事实是相关的。首先，在蝙蝠体内发现了多种不同的冠状病毒，但没有一种冠状病毒的整个长度序列与SARS-1完全相同。相反，它似乎是马蹄蝠特有的不同病毒之间形成的要素集合体。第二，这种重组病毒似乎存在于果子狸体内。它利用了SARS-1的来源，包括不同蝙蝠病毒之间的重组，然后转移到果子狸，再传播给人类。假设SARS-CoV-2也是以同样的方式形成的，似乎是合理的。但这些同样的研究也指出，首先很难确定SARS-CoV-2的确切来源——似乎有无数种蝙蝠冠状病毒，其中任何一种都可能导致SARS-CoV-2的产生，更不用说潜在的未来威胁，比如可能的SARS-3病毒。第二，需要确定一种宿主，这种宿主可能充当蝙蝠和人类之间的中间体，既可以使蝙蝠进一步适应、重组病毒，也可以将病毒从其原始来源转移到人类。

那么我们对SARS-CoV-2的起源了解多少呢?我想大家都同意，2019年底，病毒首次在武汉和中国出现了广泛的人际传播。除此之外，关于它的起源还有相当大的不确定性。鉴定出的最接近的自然变异显示超过3%的序列转移，对应至少900个核苷酸差异，并且是从1000多公里外的一只蝙蝠的样本中分离出来的。那么病毒是如何变化的，又是如何传播的呢? 最直接的假设是，该病毒是由两种或两种以上目前尚未确认的病毒重组而成，很可能是在马蹄蝠体内。这种病毒随后感染了人类或其他动物，并在开始持续传播之前传播到武汉。这里的问题是，我们到现在还没有定义出原始感染体和中间感染体。考虑到问题的规模，我并不觉得奇怪，但其他人很快就提出了替代的理论。这些理论很难被推翻，但是，简单地否认这一事实只会使相对的立场更加强硬，并毒害不同组织和国家之间的关系。毋庸置疑，武汉有一个或多个实验室在研究蝙蝠冠状病毒或蝙蝠寄生虫，而至少有一个实验室在进行功能实验。同样，病毒从本应安全的实验室逃逸的事件在几个国家的不同场合也发生过。因此，问在这个案例中是否发生过这种情况似乎并没有什么不合理的。简单地否认这种可能性无助于解决问题。在调查的早期阶段，由一个在这方面经验丰富的小组进行彻底的实验室审核，并给予检查重叠记录的机会，并与所有员工进行讨论，可能会很好地解决这个问题。我想这还是有好处的。我认为SARS-CoV-2病毒和其他已知冠状病毒的序列是不太合理的，或者是推进推测性理论，即病毒是被故意操纵的，而这些想法只是发现了争议之火。一些人认为，2019年12月之前，在世界其他地区的人类中就存在完全传染性的SARS-CoV-2，可能是由于其他动物源的溢出，也可能是由于从研究实验室逃离的结果。转移到武汉可能是通过食物链发生的。然而，鉴于其他地方没有重大的COVID-19疾病爆发，所有这些理论似乎都相对不太可能。值得注意的是，大多数为这些观点提出的科学证据都很薄弱。未来，我们需要更加坚定地从有缺陷的数据中得出结论。例如，在PCR实验中，只有三分之一的反应给出了阳性信号或血清学，这可能可以用与另一种冠状病毒感染的交叉反应来解释。我们对未来有什么希望?我的愿景，或者说我的梦想有两个主要特征：

首先是出现具有人畜共患潜力的病毒的详细目录，并加强对动物-人界面的各种转移的监测。

第二，应该建立更快速报告和应对新感染的系统。可以说，对所有相关各方来说，应对COVID-19的行动都太慢了。我们从当前疫情中吸取了很多防控经验教训。更迅速地传播早期预警将有助于作出反应，例如，通过开发针对未来紧急情况的快速聚合酶链反应诊断检测。但我们现在处在什么位置? 世卫组织召集的第一阶段研究报告已经发表，对进一步的研究提出了一些合理的建议，包括寻找更多的SARS相关病毒，或调查更多可能的中间宿主。但是，在限制调查范围方面几乎没有取得真正的进展。各方之间的信任似乎已经蒸发殆尽。世界卫生组织和中国政府在值得关注的调查领域似乎存在严重的意见分歧。与此同时，我们也在等待美国情报机构对竞争起源理论的评估报告，尽管我不认为我们会从中了解到很多。因此，我们在某种程度上陷入了僵局:我们如何前进?我们需要澄清和明确SARS-2的源头，以及它是如何到达武汉的。这将需要许多人的共同努力，加上开放和接受事实的意愿。然而，在我们恢复有关各方之间的信任之前，这是不可能的。我知道这说起来容易做起来难。但有一件事可能有助于这项工作，那就是更好地了解相关科学。第二件事是发展详细的假设，以及非常具体的标准来评估这些，而不是简单地依靠大规模调查。例如，血清学反应性的报告必须考虑到交叉反应性的问题。我想问一下，是否有可能发展免疫学检测方法来识别SARS-2的一个独特特征的反应性，比如呋喃裂解位点。同样，任何有关病毒操纵的建议都必须附有关于被操纵病毒的起始性质的精确假设，以及关于如何以及为什么完成任何更改的细节。消除分散注意力的调查领域，需要成为我们进一步溯源的一个重要部分，因为我们得加快速度。我只知道，世界卫生组织花了将近一年的时间访问并调查武汉的病毒。下一次大流行可能就在眼前，我们需要现在就把这些流程落实到位。我还有最后一个建议。我想知道是否有可能建立一个世界冠状病毒中心，试图回答人们提出的一些问题。它可以像世界流感中心一样，在世界卫生组织的框架下独立运作。它还将解决未来一些更普遍的监控问题。谢谢你！

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much Professor Stoye. I think you raise some very important points, some of which has already been clarified by the relevant authorities, for instance, whether gain of function research ever took place in the lab in Wuhan.  I just want to, you know, to complement the understanding all the information that has been given by the Chinese government. But you raised some very important points and I hope to come back to these, and our panelists should come back to these in the discussion that that are following the presentations. Many thanks to Professor Stoye. Next, let me introduce our next speaker Eric Feigl-Ding, senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC. He's also the chief health economist for “Micro Clinic International the US” now he is a nutritionist and epidemiologist and he's an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Brian and Women's Hospital and founder and director of the “Campaign for Cancer Prevention”. His research primarily focuses on obesity and nutritional risk factors for diabetes, heart disease and cancer, as well as translation of research for population prevention, and global health. After completing his undergraduate degree at the Johns Hopkins University with Honors in public health and election to find Beta Kappa, he earned his duo-doctorate in epidemiology and doctorate in nutrition at the age of 23. from Harvard University, he was the youngest graduate from his doctoral programs. At Harvard, Eric has taught and lectured in more than a dozen graduate and undergraduate courses, for which you received the Derek Bach distinction in Teaching Award from Harvard College. Eric, you have the mic, please.

非常感谢斯托耶教授。我认为你提到了一些非常重要的问题，其中一些已经得到了有关部门的澄清，比如武汉的实验室是否进行过功能研究, 我只是想补充一下中国政府所提供的所有信息。你提出了一些非常重要的观点，我希望我们的小组成员能回到这些问题，我们也应该在演讲后的讨论中回到这些问题。非常感谢斯托耶教授。下面，让我介绍我们的下一位演讲者埃里克·费格丁，华盛顿特区美国科学家联合会的高级研究员。他是营养学家和流行病学家，"美国国际微诊所"的首席健康经济学家，哈佛医学院和布莱恩妇女医院的医学讲师以及"癌症预防运动"的创始人和主任。他的研究主要集中在糖尿病、心脏病和癌症的肥胖和营养风险因素，以及人口预防和全球健康研究的转化。他在美国约翰·霍普金斯大学获得公共卫生学士学位和贝塔·卡帕奖后，在23岁时获得了哈佛大学流行病学和营养学博士学位。他是项目里最年轻的博士研究生。在哈佛，费格丁教授讲授了十几门研究生和本科生课程，因此获得了哈佛学院的德里克·巴赫杰出教学奖。埃里克，麦克风给你。

埃里克·费格丁（Eric Ding）:

Yes, thank you so much for having me. And I think in many ways, this is a very multidisciplinary pandemic response. I think, in many ways, we have obviously biologists and variations of evolutionary biologists and immunologists and of course, specialists like that sinologist. But I think in certain ways, you know, I'm not an infectious disease epidemiologist, but my doctrine, epidemiology has taught me one thing that there are a lot of ways you can look at data. You know, I've been teaching systematic reviews for many years. I've been whistleblowers of many previous things, whether it comes to pharmaceutical industry, hiding clear malfeasance on their part in adverse events. So, I've seen many of these situations, and also lead poisoning, when clearly the data shows a very targeted trend to hide the data, right? Whether it's the lead poisoning in children in Flint, whether it's the, you know, the drug Vioxx on which they hide, clearly the heart attacks that were later revealed that they willfully hit them and other Urbino effects. So, these kinds of things I've seen before. Whenever someone tried to hide the data, I think in this SARS-COVID-2 to Coronavirus situation, I don't think there's any willful direction in which they're trying to hide a clearly, a guilty thing that someone did. The data does not show that, the data is all over the place. There is a wide range of, even as you know, the fecal testing in the wastewater. And the wastewater clearly showed that the virus was outside of China and in Europe as early as October. Some say September, but October and November, in which they found positive cases who went to the hospital in late October and tested positive early November. This is in Italy. And they also found wastewater in fall of 2019, in France for SARS-COVID-2. And they also found it in blood donation samples of archive blood in the US CDC database of blood donations. And this paper was also published by the specific task force in the CDC monitors these kind of blood donation samples for infectious diseases. So, in many ways, the data is really, really diffuse, there is no specific explanation for any of these fall 2018 infections, and as a previous colleague pointed out, the data from A and B varients of SARS-COVID-2, your clue shows already very diffused across China, back then when was collected in January and late December. So, I think this is where you must use a little bit more of logic, if the data is not consistent, you can cherry pick data that shows one specific directional finding. But if you don't find that systematic, and I come from this background of systematic reviews in epidemiology of looking at clinical trials in which you have, for example, many clinical trials that only just have one heart attacks, one kidney failures, but when you flip the coin, they all flipped on for one side of the data clearly showing that the drug was dangerous. You don't have this systematic tendency towards one side. The data is all over the place. And I think this selective reporting of a lot of the data is what creates this narrative. This narrative formation is very easy in epidemiology because, you know, there's also the same correlation, not always causation, but every causation is a correlation. And to know the difference is epidemiology, the study of causal data and causal data patterns in human populations.

And that is where I'm really coming down hard, because I also, um, you know, as a whistleblower back in January, that this is going to be a thermonuclear level bad pandemic. I had no agenda, but many early on accuse me because of my Chinese-born background. That's, you know, I am a mic piece for a certain, you know, political agenda, which I do not have any political allegiance in that sense, I think what happens is that people want to believe, and people want to blame. And you see that also with Afghanistan right now, that, you know, those who want to blame by them have a lot to blame him for those who want to blame Trump have a lot to blame Trump for. But I think in certain ways, we know that, Here in Afghanistan without getting to details there's many other reasons, right? And I think the way that we try to describe it in science, and people don't understand science, and that's the truth, like, for example, the AB-variance distribution, or some of these other data, if you don't have a big scope, and you only target your news message, or any other propaganda message for one specific angle, like some members of Congress in the US tried to do you get a very, very convincing, narrow narrative. And I think as an epidemiologist and policy person who has seen how data can be distorted and seeing how industry fight back whenever they've been accused of this. But clearly, there is no “Purdue pharma conspiracy” to push opioids, a level kind of conspiracy like there is for this, Purdue pharma definitely pushed opioids. Merck, clearly tried to hide the data on the dangers of their Vioxx drug, but there is no systematic data here. And I think as an epidemiologist who looks at the totality of data, there is no directionality. And that lack of directionality, in my sense, is the best evidence that there is no, you know, specific lab origin. Obviously, there's obviously more data to be and work to be done. But I think in the totality, the confusing array of data, an inconsistency and unexplained nature data is the best evidence that probably natural origin is the most likely.

是的，非常感谢邀请我。我认为在很多方面，流行病应对是一个多学科的问题。我们有生物学家、进化生物学家和免疫学家，当然还有像汉学家这样的专家。我不是传染病流行病学家，但我的学说，流行病学教会了我一件事, 即你可以从很多方面看数据。我教系统性综述已经很多年了。我曾经揭发过很多事情，无论是在制药行业，还是那些隐瞒他们在不良事件中明显渎职的行为。我看过很多这样的情况，还有铅中毒，这些时候数据清楚地显示出一个非常有针对性的隐藏数据的趋势，对吧? 无论是弗林特儿童的铅中毒，还是他们藏在网络上故意带有心脏病发作诱因和其他乌尔比诺效应的药物。这些我以前见过。在隐瞒数据这件事上，在SARS-COVID-2到冠状病毒的情况中，我不认为他们有故意的试图隐藏某人做的一件明显有错误的事情。

关于新冠的数据到处都是。就像你们知道的，甚至是废水中的粪便测试数据都有。废水的数据清楚地显示，早在10月份，病毒就在中国以外的欧洲出现了。有人说是9月就出现了，但至少10月和11月是肯定有的，因为有病例10月末到医院就诊，然后11月初检测出阳性，这是在意大利。2019年秋天，他们还在法国发现了有SARS-COVID-2的废水。他们还在美国疾病控制与预防中心献血数据库的献血样本中发现了这种物质。这篇论文也由美国疾病控制与预防中心的特别工作组发表，他们监测这些传染性疾病的献血样本。所以, 在许多方面, 数据是真的很分散, 而且对于这些2018年秋季感染没有具体的解释, 此前我们的同行指出，在A和B的SARS-COVID-2变体数据中,显示中国的病毒案例已经很分散, 这些是在1月和12月下旬收集的数据。所以，我认为这时我们得多动动脑子，如果数据不一致，你当然可以挑选数据来支撑一个特定方向的理论。但如果没有发现系统性的证据，我作为一个有系统综述流行病学临床观察的背景的人对此是很有经验的，例如，许多临床试验只有一次心脏病发作，一次肾衰竭，但当你清算数据的时候（抛硬币），这几个数据清楚地表明药物是危险的。这次疫情的总体数据没有系统地倾向一边，数据似乎到处都有分布。我认为正是这种对大量数据的选择性报道创造了这些异端邪说的叙述。这种叙述形式在流行病学中很容易形成，因为这些数据也有一定的相关性，虽然这些数据与答案并不总是因果关系，但每个和答案有因果关系的数据都是与其相关的。要知道流行病学，很大程度上就是研究人类中的因果数据和因果数据模式。

这就是我最强烈反对的地方，因为我也，嗯，你知道，作为1月份的一名吹哨者，我说这将是一场热核级别的严重流行病。我没有任何别的目的，但很多人早期就因为我在中国出生的背景而指责我。他们觉得我是政治的喉舌，可我在这个问题上没有任何政治倾向，我认为发生的是人们想要相信错误的东西，人们想要指责别人。你现在也可以看看阿富汗的情况，你知道，那些想指责阿富汗的人有很多责任要怪在阿富汗身上，那些想指责特朗普的人有很多责任要怪特朗普。但我认为，在某些方面，我们知道，在阿富汗，我们虽然不了解细节，但肯定有许多其他原因促成了这一局面，对吧? 我认为当我们试图用科学描述疫情的时候，人们不理解科学, 这就是事实。例如, AB变种的分布, 或其他一些数据, 如果你没有大局观,你只有炒作目标,或以一个特定的角度宣传其他的信息, 就像美国一些国会议员试图做的，你会得到一个非常，非常令人信服的，狭隘的叙述。作为一名流行病学家和政策制定者,我看到了数据是如何被扭曲的, 也看到了很多行业每当被指责的时候是如何反击的。但很明显，并没有"普渡制药共谋"来推广阿片类药物，就像这个阴谋一样，普渡制药肯定在推广阿片类药物，而默克公司显然试图隐藏他们的万络药物的危险数据，但这里没有系统性的数据来证实。我认为，作为一名流行病学家，我看了所有的疫情数据，其实没有方向性。在我看来，这种方向性的缺乏，是最好的证据，证明病毒没有特定的实验室起源。显然，还有更多的数据和工作要做。但我认为，总的来说，自然起源是最有可能的。这些令人困惑的数据，不一致和无法解释的自然数据是最好的证据。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much, Eric, you have been a frequent guest on my show, and it's always very interesting to hear what you said. And you made scientific matter, very simple and very easy to follow. I think you have made it very clear. No need for me to help summarize for the audience here. Of course, we hear more from your perspective in the conversation that will follow. And next let me go to our next speaker Prof. Luis Enjuanes. Luis Enjuanes has been elected as a new international member of the american National Academy of Sciences (NAS). This election recognizes his distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Enjuanes has been working for more than 35 years on the mechanisms of replication, transcription, virulence and virus-host interaction of coronaviruses. Since January 2020, his group has been working on a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, applying the scientific knowledge that they already used in previous coronavirus outbreks: 2002 SARS-COV and MERS in 2012. Throughout his career, Enjuanes has published more than 235 articles in international journals and 58 book chapters. He was a Fogarty Visiting Fellow at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and a visiting scientist at the US National Institutes (NIH) Center for Cancer Research (FCRC). He is a professor of Virology at the Autonomous University of Madrid and the Pasteur Institute in Paris. He has been appointed Senior Distinguished Virologist by the Spanish Society of Virology, Academic of the Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, and Academic of the North American Academy of Microbiology. He is also an Expert Consultant for the NIH and the World Health Organization, and has been editor-in-chief of Virus Research. This summer he received the Spanish Medal of Merit in Research and University Education awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

非常感谢你，埃里克，你一直是我节目的常客，听到你说的话总是很有趣。你让科学问题变得非常简单，也非常容易理解。我想你已经说得很清楚了。这里就不用我帮忙总结了。当然，我们会在接下来的对话中从您的角度听到更多。下面让我们有请下一位发言人路易斯·恩朱内斯。Luis Enjuanes 获选美国国家科学院（NAS）国际会员。这项荣誉表彰了他在原创研究方面的杰出成就。Enjuanes 研究冠状病毒的复制、转录、病毒能力和病毒-宿主相互作用的机制已超过 35 年。自 2020 年 1 月以来，运用他们之前对于不同冠状病毒的研究（如：2002年的SARS-COV 和 2012 年的 MERS），他的团队一直在研究针对 这次新冠病毒的疫苗。在他的科研生涯中，Enjuanes 在国际期刊上发表超过 235 篇文章和 58 本书章节。他是美国国立卫生研究院 (NIH) 的 Fogarty 访问学者，以及其下属 癌症研究中心 (FCRC) 的访问科学家。他是马德里自治大学和巴黎巴斯德研究所的病毒学教授。他被西班牙病毒学会、皇家物理和自然科学学院和北美微生物学院任命为高级病毒学家。他还是 NIH 和世界卫生组织的专家顾问，并曾担任 《病毒研究》 的主编。今年夏天，他获得了西班牙科学与创新部颁发的西班牙研究和大学教育优异奖章。

路易斯·恩朱内斯（Luis Enjuanes）：

Okay, thank you very much for the introduction. Again because we have very, very little time, so I just want to repeat that I have been working on biology for more than 40 years. I'm not young anymore, but the last 35 years I spent on working with Coronaviruses. I have long time expertise in this area. Unfortunately, I am not an epidemiologist, but I know good ones. I will dedicate a few words to the publication by some epidemiologists. One of the things we have done along my career on coronaviruses is that our … was the first in the world that we made an infectious cDNA clone of our Coronavirus that was in the year 2000, that was published in the DNA. Yes, we could engineer any genome of any Coronavirus with engineer at this moment. Maybe I don't know exactly what seven or eight different Coronavirus genomes, that means I can be a terrorist by turning virulent those coronaviruses that are attenuated. At this time, I prefer to make a director group of people working on machine development, this is what we are doing now, preferentially in our laboratory, because we can modify very easily the genome of the different viruses. I am saying that although we know a lot on reverse genetic systems, and we have the ability to modify virus by using genetic engineering. We do not know at all the things that how to engineer a virus like this SARS Coronavirus II. So although I have been collaborating with Zhengli Shi from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. I don't think neither Zhengli, neither us, we could engineer our virus such as a SARS Coronavirus 2. That's probably I can say that as well as another set of people because we don't have the knowledge for that. What we know that all give us human Coronavirus they have so nautic origin or say the vast majority of human viruses. In along my profession of virologist anytime that a new important Coronavirus comes, there will always be theories indicating that the virus has been created by American government to feed communities (cannot be heard clearly) to the other way around. So I am not surprised now. We have the same type of debate because that existed with HIV with polio and with many other viruses. The closest known relatives of both SARS Coronavirus 1, and Coronavirus 2 are viruses from bats from Yunnan. For both SARS Coronavirus is and Coronavirus two, there is a considerable geographic gap between Yunnan in the location of the face human cases.

I will refer in my short presentation to one paper. Mostly because as I said we are good at expressing biology with genetic systems. But we are not epidemiologists. I strongly recommend to everyone. I think most of you already read the paper recently published two weeks ago by Edward Holmes. It is a fantastic paper he has submitted to Cell. And I don't think very few people can put together all the surgeons that this guy has put in the paper. I follow and I support any conclusions that they get in the paper. The main conclusion is that most likely today, there is much more evidence for the animal origin of the virus, that for the lab origin of the virus, Professor Holmes he repeats that on his paper, but he has the time to provide the scientific evidence for that. So well, as I know I will be forgetting many things. Please read this paper because like the data from epidemiology, a lot of serious information. I also was the co-signer of the two letters that have been published in The Lancet. This is fantastic a journal. In these two letters. We propose that what we need is more scientific evidence, because we don't need political discussions. And one of the questions that you align when you got started was how we will solve a problem in the understanding between different countries. Yes, my idea main idea is to keep away politicians. But equally, like some of the very important countries in this world, that they have created that terrible atmosphere for the understanding of the people. So these things has to be handled between expert scientists, of course, epidemiologists, molecular biologists and so on, and a medical doctors that work in hospitals, they have key information.

So, with that, I am answering your first question, that this is an issue for scientists, and for medical doctors essentially, is not good to introduce politicians because they cannot understand many things as it has already been said. I will just comment on a few examples. The examination of the locations of early cases showed that most were located around the HuaNan market, which is located to the north of Yangtze River. These streets were also exhibit excess pneumonia deaths in January 2020. There is no epidemiological link to any of the other locally, locality in Wuhan, including the BSL four campus. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is located to the south of the Yangtze River. So when in the original days, you could see how the epidemic was expanding. The South for Wuhan, Wuhan as you know, is a city with more than 14 million people and in Wuhan is far away from the Bay Area. They know the Institute of Virology Wuhan is far away from the area, the central area in the city of Wuhan. Because the virus appears at the North whereas the Institute of Virology is in the south of the Yangtze River. The scale is shown in this paper by Edward Holmes and other scientists, which are from different countries. Edward Holmes is from Australia, far away from many other places.

Virus is closely related to SARS Coronavirus have been documented in bats, in pangolins, in multiple localities in Southeast Asia, including China, Thailand, Cambodia and Japan. So it is not surprising that a new Coronavirus case appear. As I said before, as a Coronavirus biologist for the last 35 years, I have seen the emergency of many Coronavirus. Many animal and human Coronavirus. Human coronaviruses are known at least nine. They have isolated seven but they're known as nine. The first four they are really attenuated. And the last three, the one that appear in China in year 2002 is SARS1, the one that appear in Southeast, in the Middle East is the Coronavirus in 2012 and the last one that appear in China in 2019. So, I am used to see many new Coronavirus and matching constantly in the last 10 years in the animal world. We have more than 10 novel Coronavirus. So this is an easy thing that is constantly happening. The merchandising of an animal Coronavirus takes only three more years. as I said in the last 10 years, we knew about 10 new animal coronaviruses. although some people they want to claim that in the lab, Zhengli Shi, she could be the origin for these vitals. I don't think this is true because in the laboratory（2:19:59）, the only virus has a 96% ident sequence identity. Although you may think that this is a big identity with a person virus, genetically speaking, this is the same distance that is between the genome of the pigs and the genomes of the human people. Like Mr. Trump, that he was not an expert in genetics. He thought that that was fantastic that will accuse the lab of Zhengli Shi. Generally, she has the origin, but he is not a geneticist, he didn't realize that that these stands for 5% genome identity is the same that we have from men to pigs. So this is not an argument in so and so that is constantly repeated. Since I will have no time to go into detail. Please, when you have a few free minutes, if you have not done so, take a look to the manuscript by Dr. Holmes. He clearly states that despite extensive contact tracing on deadly cases during Covid 19 pandemic, there have been no reported cases related to any laboratory staff, or the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And all this stuff in the laboratory of Dr. Shi Zhengli were reported to be set on negative for the virus when they were tested in March 2020. Another statement on the base, there is no rational experiment or reason why a new genetic system will be developed using an unknown and virus with no evidence, no mention of SARS Coronavirus like virus in any prior publication, the study from the Wuhan Institute of virology.

There have been many interesting things in the virus, the virus world, a new sequence is made of four amino acid that was integrated in the spike protein. That was terrible, because this is more peptide provided to the virus or cleavage site by one in sign that is present in any tissue in our body. So that has allowed this virus to infect more than 50 different tissues in our bodies. And people were surprised when I was coming, this hearing clearly checked. I have no time to go into detail. But just let me know the feeling not exactly the same but similar one is in very well-known of coronaviruses is starting from the mouse hepatitis virus and followed by other human coronaviruses. So the origin of this terrible little bit tight that expand the trapezium of the virus, to any organ of our body, causing more than 50 different pathologies, the peptide that was helping to that was already present and very well known viruses. So with so little relevance, like the mouse hepatitis virus, not all of them, but many of them, they carry this little place or that little peptide. What I am trying to say at the end, is that through recombination through evolution, any virus from bats that was closely related to the actual SARS Coronavirus two, could have recombined with these other human coronaviruses. I know that at least for human coronaviruses. In fact, let's say 95% of the human population. We all have these viruses. So we've some one person is infected with an original virus in the Wuhan area and recombined with a human Coronavirus that was fully attenuated causing just a winter common cold. That will be the simple explanation for the appearance of these virus. Likely it has been happening in the previous years for the emergency or for the other Coronavirus. So in conclusion, I will read two sentences. As for the vast majority of human virus, the most direct explanation for the origin of SARS Coronavirus 2 is also not a guarantee. My opinion is also from that excellent Scientists. In this Edward Holmes paper, it is co-signed by Susan wise he's a well-known Coronavirus virology for many years. I know her for Peter Darcy's are Nobel Prize are 22 scientists. So I would base in this thing. There is currently no evidence that SARS Coronavirus2 has a celebratory region. There is no evidence that any earlier early cases had any connection to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In contrast, they are clear to me the epidemiological links to animal markets in Wuhan but there is no evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology process or working on our progenitor cells Coronavirus to prior the epidemic. I believe that there is substantial scientific evidence supporting us or not acknowledging SARS Coronavirus 2. That is 99% true in my opinion, I can say well 100% that, while the possibility of a laboratory accident cannot be entirely diminish, the simulation system is highly unlikely relative to the repeated human animal contacts that occur routinely in the wildlife. And I think I better stop here and maybe later we can talk.

好的，非常感谢你的介绍。我开始吧，因为我们的时间非常非常少。我想重申一下，我研究生物学已经超过40年了。我不再年轻了，但在过去的35年里，我一直在研究冠状病毒。所以我在这个领域有很长时间的经验。不幸的是，我不是流行病学家，但我知道一些好的流行病学家。因此，我想对一些流行病学家发表的文章发表几句。在我的职业生涯中，我们所做的项目之一是作为世界上第一个我们制造了冠状病毒的传染性cDNA克隆，这是2000年发表在DNA上的。是的，目前我们可以用工程师来设计任何冠状病毒的任何基因组。也许我不知道七八个不同的冠状病毒基因组确切的是什么。但这意味着通过把那些正在削弱的冠状病毒变成毒性的，我可以成为一个恐怖分子。在这个时候，我更倾向于让一组人负责机器的开发，这就是我们现在正在做的，最好是在我们的实验室，因为我们可以很容易地修改不同病毒的基因组。我之所以这么说，是因为尽管我们对反向遗传系统了解很多，我们也有能力通过基因工程改造病毒。但我们完全不知道如何制造这样的病毒。所以，对于SARS冠状病毒，虽然我一直在和武汉病毒研究所的石正丽合作，我不认为石正丽或是我们可以设计像SARS冠状病毒的病毒。对我来说，我可以说我们和他们都没有这方面的知识。我们所知道的人类冠状病毒，或者说绝大多数人类病毒都起源于海洋。在我作为病毒生物学家的职业中，每当有新的重要的冠状病毒出现，总会有理论出台，表明病毒是由美国政府制造给公司的，或者是反过来的（原文听不清楚）。所以我现在并不感到惊讶。我们也有同样的争论，因为在艾滋病毒、脊髓灰质炎和许多其他病毒的问题上也存在同样的争论。已知的两种SARS冠状病毒的最近亲属，一是冠状病毒，两种来自鸟类的病毒为SARS冠状病毒为冠状病毒。二是其在人类病例的位置上有相当大地理差距。

我会在简短的讲话中提到一篇论文，主要是因为我说过我们擅长用遗传系统表达生物学。但我们并不是流行病学家，我强烈推荐给大家。我想你们大多数人都已经读过Edward Holmes两周前发表的一篇论文了。那是一篇很棒的论文。我认为很少有人能把这文章里所有观点都写在一起。是的，我遵循并支持他们在论文中得出的任何结论。主要的结论是，很有可能在今天，有更多的证据证明病毒的动物来源，关于病毒的实验室来源，Holmes教授在他的论文中重复了这一点。他有提供科学证据。好吧，我知道我会忘记很多内容。请阅读这篇论文，因为有很多流行病学的数据，严肃的信息。我也是发表在《柳叶刀》杂志上的两封信的联合署名人。这是一本很棒的杂志。在这两封信中。我们认为我们需要的是更多的科学证据，因为我们不需要政治讨论。你们刚开始讨论的一个问题是我们如何解决不同国家之间的理解问题。是的，我的主要想法是远离政客，但同样，像在世界上一些非常重要的国家，政客们为人民理解病毒创造了可怕的氛围。所以这些事情必须在专家科学家之间处理，当然，包括流行病学家、分子生物学家等等，还有在医院工作的医生，他们掌握有关键信息。所以，我现在回答你的第一个问题，这是科学家的问题，对医生来说，引入政治家是不好的，因为他们不能理解很多已经说过的事情。我就此举几个例子。对早期病例发生地点的检查表明，大多数病例发生在长江以北的华南市场附近。2020年1月，这些区域附近的街道也出现了大量肺炎死亡病例。但是这和武汉其他地方并没有流行病学联系，包括BSL四校和武汉病毒学研究所，这些地点都在长江以南。所以在最初的日子里，你可以看到流行病是如何蔓延的。武汉是一个拥有1400多万人口的城市。他们知道武汉病毒研究所离那个地区很远，在武汉市的中心地区。因为病毒出现在北部，而病毒学研究所在长江以南。Edward Holmes和其他来自不同国家的科学家在这篇论文中展示了这个量表。Edward Holmes来自澳大利亚，远离其他许多地方。

在包括中国、泰国、柬埔寨和日本在内的东南亚多个地区，穿山甲、蝙蝠身上发现了冠状病毒。因此，出现新的冠状病毒病例就不足为奇了。正如我之前所说，过去35年里我见过许多冠状病毒的紧急情况，包括许多动物和人类冠状病毒。人类冠状病毒已知至少有九种。他们分离出了7个，但已知的是9个，前4个是非常弱的。最后三种，2002年出现在中国，SARS1。一种在2012出现在中东东南部。最后一种出现在2019年的中国。所以，在过去的10年里，我已经习惯了在动物世界里看到很多新的冠状病毒不断出现。我们有十多种新型冠状病毒。这是一个经常发生的简单事情。动物冠状病毒的出现只需要三年时间。就像我说的，在过去10年里，我们知道了大约10种新的动物冠状病毒。尽管有些人想声称实验室里的石正丽，她可能是病毒的来源。我不认为这是真的，因为在实验室，病毒只有96%的一致序列。虽然你可能认为这是一个很大的病毒身份，从遗传学上讲，这是猪的基因组和人类基因组之间的距离。像特朗普先生这样的，他不是遗传学专家。他认为指控实验室的石正丽是不错的。一般来说，他有携带病毒，但他不是遗传学家，他不知道这些5%的区别，是和从人到猪的基因组区别一样的。这个论点我没有时间详细讲了。当你有几分钟空闲的时候，如果你还没有这样做，请看一看Holmes博士的文章。他清楚表明，在大流行期间，广泛追踪Covid 19致命病例接触者，目前还没有发现与实验室工作人员有关的病例报告，也没有武汉病毒学研究所的病例报告。2020年3月，石正丽博士实验室的所有工作人员都被报告为病毒阴性。

另一个基本声明是，武汉病毒研究所的研究表明，在没有证据的情况下，没有合理的实验或理由，为什么会使用一种未知的病毒来开发一个新的基因系统，之前的任何文章中都没有提到SARS冠状病毒之类的病毒。病毒有很多有趣的事情，病毒世界里，一个新的序列是由四个氨基酸集成的蛋白质，这是可怕的，因为这是更多的肽提供了一个病毒或裂解位点存在于我们身体的任何组织里。这使得这种病毒能够感染我们体内50多种不同的组织。我没时间细说了。但相似的是在非常著名的冠状病毒是从老鼠肝炎病毒开始，然后是其他人类冠状病毒复合oc 43病毒。所以这种可怕的，有点紧的病毒的起源，扩展到我们身体的任何器官，导致50多种不同的疾病，帮助它的肽已经存在。所以相关性很小，就像老鼠肝炎病毒，不是所有的，但很多，它们携带这个小位置或那个小肽。最后我想说的是，通过重组，通过进化，任何来自蝙蝠的病毒都与SARS-2密切相关，都可能与这些其他人类冠状病毒重组。我知道至少对于人类冠状病毒来说，事实上，假设95%的人，我们都有这些病毒。我们有一个人感染了武汉地区的一种原始病毒，并与一种完全减弱的人类冠状病毒重组，导致了一场冬季普通感冒。这就是这些病毒出现的简单解释。可能在前几年就已经发生了紧急情况或（出现了）其他冠状病毒。最后，我说两句，至于绝大多数人类病毒，对SARS-2的起源最直接的解释也不能保证。我的观点也是来自一些优秀的科学家。Edward Holmes的文章共有22位优秀的科学家一起合作，比如Susan，是一个众所周知经验丰富的冠状病毒病毒学家。

目前没有证据表明SARS-Covid-2有一个区域。没有证据表明任何早期病例与武汉病毒学研究所有任何联系。相比之下。我很清楚武汉动物市场的流行病学联系，但没有证据表明武汉病毒学研究所在疫情发生前对冠状病毒的祖细胞进行处理或工作。我相信有大量的科学证据支持我们或不承认SARS-CoV-2，这不是一个在我看来是99%正确的说法，我可以说是100%，虽然实验室事故的可能性不能完全减少，与在野生动物中经常发生的人类与动物的反复接触相比，模拟系统是极不可能的。我想我最好就此打住，也许我们可以稍后再谈。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you. Thank you very much, professor. One is very clearly so you believe that it's most likely the SARS Coronavirus 2, or SARS code to has a zoonotic origin, and highly unlikely that and no evidence so far, that it came from a lab leak. (Introduce Prof. Wu Zhiwei)

谢谢你。非常感谢，Luis教授。很明显您相信SARS-CoV-2,或者说SARS-CoV-2编码具有人畜共患病的起源，而且极不可能，且到目前为止没有证据表明它来自实验室泄漏。（介绍吴稚伟教授）

吴稚伟（Wu Zhiwei）：

Thank you for having me here. Yeah, the previous few speakers give an excellent presentation. Really, you know, impressed by some of the studies, particular Professor Forster, basically showing how the virus mutated and the various different sub-types appeared during the last year's pandemic. It's a very interesting. You know, it's quite clear that the origin of the virus could be rather complex. And we need to look at the more in the broader scope and to see how this actually happened and move forward. If you look at the Batcave in Yunnan Province, Professor Forster mentions that there are a few people, basically they carry the antibodies. I think it's a very interesting information. The thing is that, we do have a lot of the RNA sequence data. If you think about how the virus would travel from human to human, I think we also need to look at the antibody immune response as well we know that for a lot of the viruses, they induce a very distinct physiological response. So actually are the two very powerful tools, trying to look at the relationship virus transmission and that actually the immune system put the pressure to try the virus to mutate. So those are the things that actually I think in the long run, it's something we need to look more carefully, more thoroughly in a scientific manner instead of, you know, just based on few examples, jump into a conclusion. So, this is something actually I think that as a scientist we need to do, and we need to conduct a more thorough study. The thing, what I want to point out is that I think the finding the virus origin is apparently very important. But this problem is not the most urgent issue right now. as humanity experienced many different pandemics epidemics, and we have been looking for origins of various different capacities, it's very clear that there are very few pathogens, we know where they came from, how they were transmitted to humans. So this is a very time consuming process, we need to put on a lot of effort of trying to find it out. As Professor Forster mentioned, I think one issue, which it's very interesting to me is that, you know, when the conspiracy theorists saying that this actually leaks from the Wuhan lab, or the Wuhan personnel became infected by the bat, by bat Coronavirus, and that's called the pandemic started from there. But I think it's totally unlikely. If you look at it the contagious property of this pharmacy, if indeed Wuhan personnel were infected. First, I would expect to the people in Wuhan Institute would became a first class of infected individuals instead of the HuaNan market, isn't it? That's what we learned from two years circulation of this virus. In a time, when the pandemic started, we had no knowledge, people unlikely took no precaution or social distancing, or quarantine measures to prevent them. You would definitely expect to, not only dozens, even hundreds of people around the Wuhan, or the Wuhan Institute would become infected? I don't know whether you have ever been in Wuhan Institute, it's very crowded, packed with a lot of people working in a relatively small environment. So, this is actually from Professor Forster’s data. I'm pretty convinced that you know this is not something happening in Wuhan or started in Wuhan. It is likely starting from somewhere else. I think that you know, it is providing a very powerful argument. You know, this is something we need to look at in the broader scope for the various different possible origins.

The other thing is, Professor Ding and other speakers also mentioned that this virus there has been detected in various different locations in different countries and different populations and different sources like a sewage and water draining systems. I think this given us the very clear information. So this origin couldn't be much more complicated than we thought. it's not uncommon that in the virus could have started from multiple origins, particularly when you think about the Coronavirus as a such a broad mammalian host. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future that people found that this virus actually is hosted in various different mammalian animals and junk from multiple sites. If you will read the recent report in the northeast US that they want to do is LTR tested serologically positive for Coronavirus. This is something actually, I think it's very interesting model for the studies should be done. But this will give us an idea that the Coronavirus distribution spatially, it shouldn't be much broader than we thought. I think that this is something actually we all should bear in mind. But as a scientist is really concerned, is that this origin founding mission has been really poisoned by the political involvement. You know, in the past that we know that the funding the origin of pretty much the scientist has dropped and it's not driven by single entity or the government or any, you know, organizations, not even NGOs. One of one epidemic that happens and people automatically who they're trying to find out where the virus came from how this is studied. And you will see that the multiple scientists from various different countries are trying to do research. This is, I think, the right form of doing the research finding the origin and all that. I mean, only one study. The conclusion coming from this source appeal review that they have a convincing power to make people's take actions to prevent the further happening of the pandemic. I think the current environment is very toxic. The issue was raised by some US politicians, and driven by some media reports, and all sorts of theories, conspiracies arise, you can't really tell what is true for days, what is false, it's very complex. And right now, I think in this environment, it's very hard for scientists to do any, any convincing work. And that's one of the problems. If you look at the database shows team coming into Wuhan conducted the research, and they give us a very clear indication that okay, the lab leak theory is extremely unlikely. And then now, numbers of politicians are still driving this theory, and they're trying to have another investigation. I think this is something actually, you know, my feeling is that whatever you find, then they're always open to see suspicion under this kind of environment. Because my feeling is first scabies will not be satisfied by the US government or some politicians. Basically, the report did not provide what they liked. I think that's the whole issue. It's, you know, for the second study and research, there is no new evidence or no new rationale for why we need the second investigations or research. When you are looking at it, the possibilities, most of us scientific communities will believe that the lab leaking or the lab personnel infection, and disseminate from that is extremely unlikely. So basically, the natural origin is a more likely scenario. My question basically is very simple. If the lab-related dissemination is an extremely unlikely, unlikely event, so why we need to stick with trying to find out focus on the very unlikely source, instead of going for the more likely source, which actually more likely give you a reliable or convincing outcome. And we could take some action to prevent the further other virus, disease. I think this is something actually, we need to look at the cost and the benefit issues. This is my point.

The other thing is that I think, you know, my feeling is that the WHO probably is not the proper entity to conduct this study. Because in the past, that the most of those virus origin tracing is done by individual scientists. They get grants, they conduct studies and the drawn various different conclusions. And when you have all those come together, people build up consensus. This is a more scientific manner of doing this kind of research. Since the time is running short, now, I would like to propose that I think it's more adequate way of doing this is that create some kind of research program. Let's assign this to the research individual scientists, just as we do the research, in other regular research, from the evolutionary biologist, from the epidemiologist, and also the public health experts from various different angles and looking at human factors, looking at the data, wild animals, natural factors and all sorts of other clinical doctors could involve. I mean, from all multiple phases, the studies, then we come down to a certain consensus conclusion that I think would be much more convincing and acceptable to people. This is pretty much my points. Thank you.

谢谢你们邀请我来这里。是的，前几位演讲者都做了精彩的演讲。你知道，一些研究给我留下了深刻的印象，特别是Forster教授基本上讲解了病毒是如何变异的，以及在去年的大流行中出现的各种不同的亚型。你知道，很明显，病毒的起源可能相当复杂，我们需要在更广泛的范围内进行更多的研究，看看这是如何发生的，以及如何向前发展。如果你去看看云南的蝙蝠洞。福斯特教授提到有一些人，基本上他们携带着抗体。我认为这是一个非常有趣的信息。问题是，你知道，我们确实有很多RNA序列数据。如果你思考病毒是如何在人与人之间传播的，我认为我们还需要研究抗体免疫反应。正如我们知道，对于很多病毒来说，它们会引发非常独特的生理反应，和基因分型实际上是两个非常强大的工具，试图研究病毒传播的关系以及免疫系统施加压力试图让病毒变异的困难。我认为从长远来看，我们需要更仔细、更彻底的研究，以科学的方式，而不是仅仅基于几个例子仓促下结论。所以，作为一个科学家，我认为这是我们需要做的。我们需要进行更彻底的研究。我想指出的是，我认为找到病毒来源显然是非常重要的。但这个问题并不是目前最紧迫的问题。人类经历了许多不同的流行病，我们一直在寻找各种不同的来源，很明显，我们只知道很少的病原体从哪里来，它们是如何传染给人类的。所以这是一个非常耗时的过程，我们需要花很多精力来找出答案。正如Forster教授提到的，阴谋论者说这实际上是从武汉实验室泄漏，或者武汉人员因为蝙蝠感染了冠状病毒，并把这叫做大流行的开始，这对我来说很有趣，但我认为这是完全不可能的。你看看这病毒的传染性，如果武汉的工作人员真的被感染了，首先，我预测武汉病毒研究所的人会成为首要的感染者而不是在华南海鲜市场，不是吗？这是我们从这两年的病毒传播中学到的。有一段时间，当大流行开始的时候，我们还没有知识信息，人们不太可能采取预防措施或社交距离，或隔离措施来预防病毒。你肯定会预测，不仅仅是几十人，甚至是数百人，或者武汉病毒研究所会被感染。我不知道你是否去过武汉病毒研究所，那里非常拥挤，很多人在相对狭小的环境中工作。这是Forster教授的数据。我相信你们知道，这不是武汉发生的事情，也不是从武汉开始的。它很可能从其他地方开始。我认为序列数据和传播数据提供了一个非常有力的论据。你知道，这是我们需要在更广的范围内研究各种可能的起源。

另一件事是，迪安教授和其他发言者也提到这种病毒在不同的国家、不同的地方、不同的人群和不同的来源如污水和排水系统都有被检测到。我认为这给了我们非常明确的信息。所以起源会比我们想象的更复杂。病毒可能有多个起源，这并不罕见，尤其是当你想到冠状病毒宿主是广泛的哺乳动物时。所以，如果将来人们发现，这种病毒实际上寄生在各种不同的哺乳动物和来自多个地方的垃圾中时，我不会感到惊讶。如果你看最近美国东北部的报告，他们想做的是对冠状病毒的血清学检测呈阳性。我认为这是一个非常有趣的模型。但这让我们知道冠状病毒在空间上的分布不应该比我们想象的更广。所以我认为这是我们大家都应该记住的。但是作为一个科学家，真正关心的是这个溯源任务已经被政治的介入毒害了。你知道，在过去，我们知道资金的来源几乎已经下降，这不是因为单一的机构或政府或任何组织，甚至非政府组织，一个一个的疫情发生，人们自动地试图找出病毒来自哪里，这是如何研究的。你会看到来自不同国家的多位科学家试图做研究，我认为，这是做研究的正确形式。因此，从来源呼吁审查得出的结论是，他们有令人信服的力量，让人们采取行动，防止大流行的进一步发生，我认为当前的环境是非常有害的。提出问题的是一些美国政客，由一些媒体报道各种各样的理论、阴谋。你不能知道什么是真的，什么是假的。很复杂，现在，所以我认为在这样的环境下,科学家都很难做任何令人信服的工作。这是一个问题，如果你看看数据库就会发现，进入武汉的团队进行了这项研究，他们给了我们一个非常明确的迹象，好吧，自由理论是不太可能的。现在很多政客仍在推动这一理论，他们正试图进行另一项调查。我认为这是真的，对我来说，我的感觉是，不管你发现什么，这种环境下，他们总会去怀疑。因为我的感觉是美国政府或一些政客不满意第一次调查，基本上是因为这份报告没有提供他们想要的东西。我认为这就是问题所在。对于第二次调查和研究来说，并没有新的证据或者理由来解释为什么我们需要第二次调查和研究。当你看到它时，我们大多数科学界都会相信实验室泄漏或实验室人员感染，并由此传播是极不可能的。所以基本上，自然起源是更有可能的情况。我的问题很简单。所以，如果实验室相关的传播是极不可能发生的事件，那么我们为什么要坚持尝试找出非常不可能的来源，而不是去寻找实际上更有可能给你一个可靠或令人信服的结果，一个更有可能的来源。我们可以采取一些行动来进一步预防其他疾病。我认为实际上，我们需要看看成本和收益的问题。这就是我的观点。

另一件事是我认为世界卫生组织可能不是进行这项研究的合适机构。因为在过去，大多数追踪病毒来源的工作都是由单个科学家完成的，他们获得拨款，进行研究，得出各种不同的结论。当你把所有这些都放在一起时，人们就会建立共识。所以这是一种更科学的研究方式。既然时间不多了，现在，我想提议，我认为做这件事更合适的方式是：创建一些某种研究项目。让我们把这项研究分配给个体科学家，就像我们在其他常规研究中做的那样，从进化生物学家，流行病学家，还有公共卫生专家，从不同角度看人类因素，看数据，比如野生动物，自然因素和其他各种临床医生可能涉及的，我的意思是，从各个阶段研究，然后我们得出一个特定的共识结论，我认为这将更有说服力，更容易被人们接受。这就是我的观点。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you so much, Professor Wu. I know a lot of points everybody wants to make. But time is really limited. And we have already gone on for one hour and 15 minutes. But it has been indeed a fascinating and very original and important suggestions been made here. We're going to go into a second round to give everybody the opportunity to react to what others have said, or to supplement or whatever they think they view is necessary. Let's try to limit the time of that. Everybody will be given five minutes to react to whatever whichever panelists Do you feel you most want to talk about react to? And altogether? Let's keep that into something like 35 minutes, and then I'll open the floor. If there are any questions from the audience, or any additional points anybody here would want to make. And let me start with academicians Wu. please go ahead.

非常感谢吴教授。我知道很多人都想提出观点。但是时间真的很有限。我们已经进行了 1 小时 15 分钟。但这里确实提出了一个引人入胜且非常重要的建议。因此，我们将进入第二轮，让每个人都有机会对其他人所说的话做出反馈，或者补充他们认为必要的任何内容。每个人都将有五分钟的时间对您最想谈论的小组成员做出反馈，让我们保持大约 35 分钟。如果观众有任何问题，或者这里的任何人都想提出任何其他问题。让我从吴院士开始。

吴仲义（Wu Chung-I）:

Thank you, I can see sort of a sense broad agreement. Several panel members spoke about task responsibility. So the many, many teams, our research team are embark on the search of the origin. And what is really missing and I keep pushing this point, there is no conceptual development. Everybody talks about empirical ways on your look this, look at that, and use this machine and so on. But people should start thinking about the process of adaptation, for example. I think it belongs to who to develop a concept. For example, if you come to a place, where whichever place and look for the viral origin, you have to define how many mutations do you think make the virus jump from, say bats to human? And in? If it's a multiple mutation process? Where did it happen and under what kind of conditions? I kept asking WHO to come up with the model. If you come to a place and you are looking for a crime suspect, you have to define some broad outline what you're looking for. You're looking for tow guy, show guy, the bald guy or whatever. And the virus, what might be the feature of the virus? How many mutations you think would make the jump, but we emphasize so much on empirical side of it. And the conceptual aspect is blank. Nobody say what we're looking for, everybody say how we want to look for, how many members and what kind of lab notebook they want to look at? What if the virus is actually sitting in front of you? Do you have an idea that that is virus I'm looking for? No. Because we have to think about it. So let me just say one more thing. Last thing, please WHO please come up with the model. Every team is looking for it. And you are representing international effort, use some brain, propose some concept of what you're looking for. So that's, that's what I am asking very specifically.

谢谢，我可以看到在一些问题上已经有了广泛共识。因此，几位小组成员谈到了任务分配问题。所以很多团队，包括我们的研究团队都在着手寻找病毒起源。所以真正缺少的是什么，我一直在推动这一点，就是我们对这个问题没有“概念”。每个人都在谈论经验方法，你看这个，看那个，使用这台机器等等。但是人们应该开始思考“适应”，例如。所以我认为谁应该对这个溯源的概念做一个定义？例如，如果你来到一个地方，无论在哪里寻找病毒起源，你必须定义你认为有多少突变会让病毒从蝙蝠跳到人类? 如果是多重突变过程呢？它会发生在什么地方，在什么样的条件下发生？所以我一直要求世卫组织提出这个模型。如果您来到一个地方并正在寻找犯罪嫌疑人，则必须定义一些大致的轮廓。你在找拖车男、表演男、光头男什么的。还有病毒，病毒的特征可能是什么？你认为有多少突变会导致跳跃。但我们现在非常强调它的经验方面。概念方面是空白的。没有人说我们在找什么，每个人都说我们想怎么找，有多少成员，他们想看什么样的实验室记录？如果病毒真的就在你面前怎么办？你知道那是我正在寻找的病毒吗？不，因为我们必须考虑它。所以让我再说最后一件事，请WHO请拿出一个模型、概念。每个团队都在寻找它。你代表国际力量，动动脑筋，提出你正在寻找的一些概念。所以，这就是我要问的非常具体的问题。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Under the current framework, you should be asking this to the WHO and China probably because this is a joint study. It's probably not just the WHO that should be coming up with this model. And even according to Professor Wu Zhiwei, it shouldn't really be the job of the WHO to be undertaking this task.

所以在目前的框架下，实际上，我们应该向世卫组织和中国提出这个问题，因为这是一项联合研究。因此，提出这种模式的可能不仅仅是世卫组织。即使按照吴志伟教授的说法，承担这项任务也不应该是世界卫生组织的工作。

吴仲义（Wu Chung-I）:

Well, I think they are. Every team in every country, everybody is looking for it. And WHO is the only one that represents international effort. So they should be the one like the glue and hold everybody together. And that's the concept, not the technical detail.

嗯，我认为是这样的。每个国家的每个团队，每个人都在寻找它。世卫组织是唯一代表国际力量的组织。所以他们应该像胶水一样把每个人都凝聚在一起。这就是概念，而不是技术细节。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

All right. Okay. Thank you. Next, let me go to Professor Shi Weifeng. Your five minutes.

好吧。好的。谢谢。接下来，让我去找史教授。

史卫峰（Shi Weifeng）:

Yeah, it's great to hear different voices. And, and especially, I would like to thank Luis, because in factor we missioned the same papers, the professor Eddie Holmes, this paper is under review with Cell. And he has provided a lot of evidence supporting the zoonotic or origin of SARS-cov-2. I'm sure it will be published and it worth reading. Also Luis has said a lot about... He is quite honest. He doesn’t have the facilities and the capacities to engineer such a virus, Neither can Professor Shi Zhengli. So this is what we want to share. This actually responded to Jonathan. In his presentation, he mentioned the gain-of-function studies. In fact, so no scientists can do this now. Because my question is, where is the starting point to do this experiment? Where is a genetic born for this study? We don't have any information to do this experiment before the pandemic. So, no one can do such kind of function studies. This is my view. So for the last point, I would like to highlight that it is the scientists should do the origins studies, rather than spies. So, I don't think we should wait for the USA to release a narrow report for this. Because I don't believe spies as scientist, I just believe in evidence, your scientific evidence. That's all thank you.

是的，听到不同的声音真是太好了。而且，特别是，我要感谢 Luis，因为我们发布了相同的论文，Eddie Holmes 教授，这篇论文正在接受 Cell 的审稿。并且他提供了大量证据支持SARS-Coronavirus-II的人畜共患病的可能起源。我相信它会出版，值得一读。Luis也说了很多关于这个问题。他很诚实。他没有制造这种病毒的设施和能力，石正丽教授也没有。所以这就是我们想要分享的。所以，这实际上回应了Jonathan。在他的演讲中，他提到了功能获得研究。事实上，现在没有科学家可以做到这一点。因为我的问题是，做这个实验的起点在哪里？为这项研究而提供的原始基因在哪里？所以我们没有任何信息可以在大流行之前进行这个实验。所以，没有人可以做这样的功能研究。这是我的看法。所以最后一点，我想强调的是，应该做起源研究的是科学家，而不是间谍。所以，我认为我们不应该等待美国为此发布一份狭隘的报告。因为我不相信间谍是科学家，我只相信证据，你的科学证据。这就是我要说的全部，谢谢。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much, Professor Shi. You said you only believe in scientists but not spies. And I would second that opinion. I think the gain-of-function point probably Jonathan would like to react later when your turn comes, if you will. And other panelists, of course, if you are, if you need to comment on that, you can also do that. Next five minutes will be given to Professor Peter Foster, please.

非常感谢史教授。你说你只相信科学家，不相信间谍。我赞同这个意见。如果您愿意，我认为功能获得研究这个点 Jonathan 希望稍后在轮到您时做出您的反馈。其他小组成员，当然，如果您需要对此发表评论，您也可以这样做。接下来的五分钟请给Peter教授。

Peter Forster:

Thank you. I'll try to keep it very short. What I see emerging here, both from Jonathan's comments, and Professor Wu, and thank you very much for the praise, and as well as our other Chinese hosts is that perhaps some bureaucracies are too slow, as they are at the moment to react to something as big as the coronavirus pandemic. And perhaps we need indeed new platforms where a very quick notice individual researchers with special skills can be activated at short notice, and therefore that's something I think I would very much support as an idea. And I want to say briefly, one thing on the home study, I found a lot of homework was in there excuse upon. But I thought also, that they were too narrowly focused on Wuhan as an origin. So even though they looked at the wet market, specifically, as I showed in my presentation, I'm, I'm not even convinced that the Wuhan area and Hubei province is the best candidate at the moment. But clearly the data is limiting for these very early stages. And that's not the last word, but I think we shouldn't narrow on Hubei province.

谢谢。我会尽量保持简短。所以我从乔纳森的评论和吴教授中看到的，非常感谢你的赞美，以及我们其他的中国方面的专家。的确，也许有些官僚机构太慢了，因为他们目前无法对像冠状病毒大流行这样大的事情的迅速的反应。也许我们确实需要新的平台，可以在短时间内动员具有特殊专业的个人研究人员，因此我认为这是我非常支持的想法。而且我想简单说一下，关于对原发地的研究这件事，我发现很多作业都是在那里找借口的。但我也觉得，他们太狭隘地把武汉当成出唯一的发源地。因此，即使他们关注了海鲜市场，具体来说，正如我在演示中所展示的，我甚至都不完全相信武汉地区和湖北省是目前最好的候选者。但显然，这些非常早期的数据是有限的。我认为我们不应该将溯源湖北省狭隘化。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Okay, thank you, Professor Forster. Jonathan, your time to react to some of the points that have been raised so far.

好的，谢谢你，福斯特教授。乔纳森，是时候对迄今为止提出的一些观点做出反应了。

Jonathan Stoye:

I must make it clear that I do not agree with gain-of-function experiment or gain of function suggestions. I think they're extremely, extremely unlikely. The problem is, once the suggestion has been made, you have to have a way of disproving it, and it's very hard to disprove. Now, I agree totally, that we are probably not capable of designing such an experiment in order to make a virus that we currently have. And I would have argued that if I had to have more time, so I don't think the game of function experiments is something that I believe in, but some people do, and some of those people are influential. So how do you address the problem? The problem has been, you know, the cat's been laid out. We have the idea out there. How do we get rid of it, and it's difficult, and that's why we'd like to see people formulating more specific hypotheses in which would be testable. So that's the first thing I would say. The second thing I would say is that we have to be very careful about the way we assess some of the sewage data. As far as I know, and I think I'm right. The first report came from Spain. And that was in March or so. And that talked about data based on one out of three PCR probes. And there was no sequence data. So I cannot consider that reliable. The second report was the Italian one. Well, that was from samples taken in late December 2019. The third one was a French one. And that samples taken in March 2020. I don't think it's one can conclude from these studies that there was virus floating around in Europe at that particular time. And I think the general point would be is that we have to be very careful to look at the data that is presented before we draw conclusions from it. And I'm slightly worried that people haven't been looking at the data harder.

我必须明确表示，我不认可功能获得实验的假说。我认为他们是极不可能的。问题是，一旦提出了建议，就必须有反驳的方法，而且很难反驳。现在，我完全同意，我们可能无法设计这样的实验来制造我们目前拥有的病毒。我会争辩说，如果我必须有更多的时间，所以我不认为功能实验是我所相信的。但有些人相信，其中一些人有影响力。那么你如何解决这个问题呢？问题是，猫已经摆好姿势了。我们有这个想法。我们如何摆脱它，这很困难，这就是为什么我们希望看到人们制定更具体的可检验的假设。所以这是我要说的第一件事。我要说的第二件事是，我们必须非常谨慎地评估一些污水数据。据我所知，我认为我是对的。第一份报告来自西班牙。那是在三月左右。这谈到了基于三分之一 PCR 探针的数据。并且没有序列数据。所以我不认为那份报告是可靠的。第二份报告是意大利的。那是 2019 年 12 月下旬采集的样本。第三个是法国的。那些样本是在 2020 年 3 月采集的。所以我认为不能从这些研究中得出结论，即在那个特定时间，欧洲存在病毒。我认为，在我们从中得出结论之前，我们必须非常小心地查看所有的数据。我有点担心，人们没有很认真地查看数据。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you, Jonathan. I think there are more papers that have been published that actually point to earlier emergence of the progenitor... for instance, the very, the latest that I know is the preprints with the Lancet, which was posted on early August, which it says the researchers in Italy estimates their source code.

谢谢你，乔纳森。我认为已经发表的更多论文实际上指出了病毒在早期出现在......例如，我所知道的最新的是柳叶刀的预印本，它是在八月初发布的，它说意大利的研究人员估计了他们的源代码。

Jonathan Stoye:

At what date did the samples taken?

样品是在什么日期采集的呢？

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Yeah, the conclusion is that they estimate SARS-Cov-II progenitor of known human infections to have emerged in late June and late August 2019. In Lombardy, Northern Italy. If anybody's interested it is open source, people can go and find but I think the researchers will definitely not make this kind of estimates based only on very few numbers isolated, weak evidence in your words, and they have a way to find to say whether the date of the collection of the samples can actually point to that kind of preliminary conclusion. But anyway, just to allude to the fact that there are studies which are pointing to an even earlier date of this virus emerging in Europe, mid June and mid or late August 2019. So that's a very important aspect in the whole thing. Anyway, it's not for me to be arguing you here. If anybody still has something burning to say, just to be fair to everybody, how about that? Let me go to Eric Ding, your five minutes, please.

是的，结论是他们估计已知人类感染的 SARS-Cov-II 最早出现在 2019 年 6 月下旬和 8 月下旬。在意大利北部的伦巴第。如果有人觉得它是最原始的，人们可以去寻找，但我认为研究人员绝对不会仅根据极少数孤立的数字进行这种估计。用你的话来说是薄弱的证据，他们有办法找到说是否收集样本的日期实际上可以指向这种初步结论。但无论如何，只是要暗示一个事实，即有研究表明这种病毒在欧洲出现的时间更早，即 2019 年 6 月中旬和 8 月中旬或下旬。所以这是整个事情中非常重要的一个方面。不管怎样，我不应该在这里和你争论。接下来请 Eric Ding发言。

Eric Ding:

Yes, I think this is a very interesting debate. And I'm really glad that you guys organized it. First of all, that, um, it's not just a wastewater. There is the in Turin, or near Milan, Italy, there was a child who was diagnosed with COVID. From his blood samples, he got sick end of October and was positive in early November. And the CDC blood sample study was published in clinical infectious diseases. And it was actually a date prior to November, I think it was October or September, was the date in which they had found archived blood samples with the positive result. So those are not false readings. And so in terms of gain-of-function, I also work in policy. One thing is, policy is oftentimes driven by optics, optics, not the physics optics, but the optics of what people perceive. Because the law of this discussion, we're all scientists, but what people see is that if scientists arguing amongst each other, and this is how also climate change is denied, because Oh, the scientists can't agree. You know, we're not going to touch all this kind of stuff. The thing is, when people see scientists arguing about this, they feel there's a conspiracy. Because the scientists cannot agree. So when we can't disagree with each other, we have to disagree in a nuanced way. And for the lay public, they need to hear Oh, we agree on this, but it's just these minor details that we disagree on. Because if the scientists attack each other, in and obviously no more public forum than this, the lay public will see that this is a Oh, my God, science cannot agree on anything, maybe some of the conspiracy theories are true. I just want to warn that from a policy aspect, those kind of optics really drive also conspiracy theories. So we have to really in the public forums, disagree carefully about the nuances. And I think this messaging, what is gain functions, and people can agree on gain function, because the argument is vouching and Senator Rand Paul was about, you know, you don't know what gain function is. Right? That's why you don't know what you're talking about. I think first of all, that these kind of issues have to be real. We have to have scientific consensus, and debunk whenever things cross the line on political things. But also be mindful about the policy optics, how you discuss it in a scientific private forum, versus how you discuss it on a Twitter or a news media outlet. And I think that will help drive go long ways in helping resolve this in a way that actually that people can trust. And people don't immediately go to conspiracy theories, whenever they disagreement, and that's my two cents.

是的，我认为这是一场非常有趣的辩论。我真的很高兴你们组织了它。首先，这不仅仅是废水的问题。在都灵或意大利米兰附近，有一个孩子被诊断出患有新冠肺炎。从他的血液样本来看，他在 10 月底生病，11 月初呈阳性。并且CDC血液样本研究发表在临床传染病上。它实际上是在 11 月之前的某个日期，我认为是 10 月或 9 月，是他们找到具有阳性结果的存档血液样本的日期。所以这些不是错误的读数。因此，在功能获得研究上，当然我也从事政策工作。一件事是，政策通常是由普通民众的感受决定的。虽然我们都是科学家，但人们看到的是，如果科学家们相互争论，这就是气候变化被否认是一样的道理，因为哦，你看科学家们自己都相互不同意。你知道。问题是，当人们看到科学家为此争论不休时，他们会觉得这里面有一个阴谋，因为科学家们不能同意。因此，我们必须以微妙的方式表达不同意见。对于普通大众，他们需要听到，哦，我们同意这一点，但我们不同意的只是这些小细节。因为如果科学家们互相攻击，普通公众会看到这是，我的上帝，科学不能就任何事情达成一致，也许一些阴谋论是真的。我只是想警告一下，从政策方面来看，这种感觉确实也推动了阴谋论。所以我们必须真正在公共论坛上，谨慎地对细微差别提出异议。我认为这个消息，什么是功能获得研究，人们可以就这一点达成一致，因为争论是肯定的，而参议员兰德保罗的那句：“你知道，你不知道功能获得研究是什么对吗？这就是为什么你不知道你在说什么”是一样的道理。我认为首先，这类问题必须是真实的。我们必须有科学共识，如果政治越界了，我们可以揭穿它。但也要注意政策上的反馈，你如何在科学氛围里讨论它，而不是你如何在 Twitter 或新闻媒体上讨论它。我认为这将有助于推动以人们实际上可以信任的方式帮助解决这个问题。人们不会在出现分歧时立即转向阴谋论，那是我的想法。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Okay, thank you so much. Indeed, it's very difficult for a lot of people to follow the topic. I mean, I have been doing this subject for so long and reading so much to be able to follow. But otherwise, for the ordinary people, it's very, very difficult and, and conspiracy has one thing about it is easy. And it's, you know, thrilling, easy to understand and entertaining sometimes as well. Anyway, many thanks to Eric, next professor Enjuanes. Your five minutes, please?

好的，非常感谢。事实上，很多人都很难跟上这个话题。我的意思是，我搜集这个主题已经很长时间了，阅读了很多内容以便能够理解它。但除此之外，对于普通人来说，这是非常非常困难的，而且阴谋有一点很容易。你知道，它有时也令人兴奋、易于理解和娱乐。不管怎样，非常感谢 Eric，Enjuanes请你发言。

Luis Enjuanes:

Let's see what I can make three points. The first one, I will start with a Chinese government. I think Chinese government has the power to organize by themselves, a committee of experts that could investigate the data in China, in communicate resource to the Chinese government. I think they have the right to do that. The other options, but I think it's important to share the information to the Chinese government, and they can choose the pledges for this in the world, not only with Chinese but with other people. And this has to be solved. If I reply to Wu Chung-I from Chicago University, what you are asking for is almost impossible. Because viruses, they can make thousands, possibly millions of mechanisms to change virulence, to go from non-infected for crossing a species, just with that can take the mutation of a single amino acid on the receptor binding site. But that can be a matter of the polio, they contain 16 different genes. So there is no single model, there are thousands. Viruses are very powerful. They generate billions and billions and billions for mutants, there are no two RNA viruses that have the same gene, they are always at least one difference between one gene and the other. They have so many possibilities that it's impossible to present a unique model. And gain-of-function, we are in our lab, we do lots of function every day, because we delete genes completely or partially to attenuate the virus and make vaccines. This is our job these days. We can attenuate viruses, because we will not be taken to the jail if we do that. But if we do our gain of function, they will take us to the jail immediately. Because this is absolutely forbidden. Again, there are thousands of ways you can do that. A single change, a single mutation on the protein they destroy, destroys it and channel activity will kill the virus. And you can restore that by a compensatory mutation. This is again, a highly complex matter, but you cannot work on these you can work in one direction attenuation. This is fantastic, because this is the modern way to develop vaccines, but not in the gain-of-function. You can’t do that in Europe, or the United States because you will go to the jail next day.

我想说三点。第一个，我将从中国政府开始说起。我认为中国政府有权自行组织一个专家委员会来调查中国的数据，向中国政府传达资源。我认为他们有权这样做。但我认为向中国政府分享信息很重要，他们可以选择在世界上为此做出承诺，不仅与中国人，也与其他人。而这必须要解决。如果我回复芝加哥大学的吴教授，你所要求的几乎是不可能的。因为病毒，它们可以产生数千甚至数百万种机制来改变毒力，从未感染到跨物种感染，只需在受体结合位点上进行单个氨基酸的突变。但这可能是脊髓灰质炎的问题，它们包含 16 个不同的基因。所以没有单一的模型，有成千上万个。病毒非常强大。它们为突变体产生数十亿、数十亿和数十亿，没有两种具有相同基因的 RNA 病毒，它们总是至少在一个基因和另一个基因之间存在一个差异。所以他们有太多的可能性，不可能呈现一个独特的模型。功能获得，在我们的实验室里，我们每天都在做很多这方面的研究，比如：我们完全或部分删除基因来减弱病毒并制造疫苗。这是我们的工作。我们可以削弱病毒，因为如果我们这样做，我们就不会被关进监狱。但是，如果我们不履行职责，他们会立即将我们带到监狱。因为这是绝对禁止的。同样，有成千上万种方法可以做到这一点。它们破坏的蛋白质上的一个变化，一个单一的突变，就会破坏它，通道活动将杀死病毒。你可以通过补偿性突变来恢复它。所以这又是一个非常复杂的问题，你可以在一个方向衰减病毒的功能。这太棒了，因为这是开发疫苗的现代方式，但不是获得功能研究。如果你在欧洲或美国这样做，因为你第二天就会进监狱。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much Professor Enjuanes. and Professor Wu please.

谢谢Enjuanes 教授，下面请吴教授。

吴稚伟（Wu Zhiwei）:

Finding the virus origin is more like a detective in forensic analysis, you start with many different possibilities, trying to broaden your scope, and to see what they actually are likely, or probably. This is the right way to do that you need to broaden the scope and looking for different possibilities. And gradually, based on evidence, you narrow down to two probabilities, and then focus your effort and your resources on those highly possible or probable events. I think this is something actually went missing in the early stage of this virus origin finding. I think part of the reason is that a few politicians are trying to steal the entire narratives. And so the scientists are pretty much on the sideline of the whole scenario in finding the virus origins. So this is something actually if we are serious, trying to find where the virus came from, how it evolved, and the getting into human and disseminated, we need to do in a scientific manner. That's the one point the other thing is that the for the WHO’s role, I think it's better as a professor Wu mentioned in the speech, that WHO could set certain parameters and concept and what we actually need to find, and leave all the rest of the job, the detailed analysis, tracing, evolution, study and the sequence, all sorts of technical issues, leave it to the scientists let them do the job and then come with a consensus. This is something actually science could do the best and not politicians, not Senators, the president. This is what we need to do in the future virus to treat origin case. The other is that, you know, sometimes, as Professor Stoye mentioned, the other part of the gain-of-function, it's often technically it's very hard to disprove this, because it's likely in the, some of the politicians are saying, okay, during the late September, three people in Wuhan, instead of virologically became sick, they didn't provide the name of who actually became sick and for what reason, then they, if they refuse to provide information, then you can’t approve that. Because if you do not have such patients, how can you prove you don’t have it. This is more like a kind of a trap. I think this is something actually we should avoid in terms of this virus origin finding. As a scientist, I think, we all should bear in mind is that the politician politics should not step into this kind of issue otherwise, then the international collaboration, and the spirit of the science will break down. This is my view. Thank you.

找到病毒来源更像是法医分析中的侦探，你从许多不同的可能性开始，试图扩大你的范围，看看它们实际上可能是什么。这是您需要扩大范围并寻找不同可能性的正确方法。逐渐地，根据证据，您将范围缩小到两种可能性，然后将您的精力和资源集中在那些极有可能发生或很可能发生的事件上。我认为这是在发现病毒起源的早期阶段缺失的东西。我认为部分原因是一些政客试图窃取整个故事。因此，科学家们在寻找病毒起源的整个过程中几乎处于边缘。如果我们是认真的，试图找出病毒的来源，它是如何进化的，以及进入人类和传播的过程，我们需要以科学的方式来做。这是一点，另一件事是对于WHO的作用，我认为像吴教授在演讲中提到的那样更好，WHO可以设定某些参数和概念以及我们实际需要找到的东西，而剩下的所有工作，详细的分析、追踪、进化、研究和序列，各种技术问题，交给科学家让他们完成工作，然后达成共识。这实际上是科学可以做的最好的事情，而不是政治家，而不是参议员，总统。这就是我们在未来病毒治疗起源中需要做的。另一个是，你知道，有时，正如 Stoye 教授提到的，功能获得的另一部分，从技术上讲，通常很难反驳这一点，因为这很可能像一些政客说的，九月下旬，武汉三个人，不是病毒学意义上的生病，而是没有提供实际生病的名字和原因。但如果他们拒绝提供信息，那你就无法证明。因为如果你没有这样的病人，你怎么证明你没有。所以这更像是一种陷阱。所以我认为这实际上是我们在发现病毒来源方面应该避免的事情。作为一个科学家，我认为，我们都应该记住的是，政治不应该涉足这类问题，否则国际合作和科学精神就会崩溃。所以这是我的观点。谢谢。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Thank you very much, Professor, I probably see there are still people who want to follow up and react. How about this, I'm going to give another 10 minutes for free for free, you know, intervention, if anybody feel like doing it and make it really fast, efficient, I see Professor already raising your hand. Okay, anybody else who wants to make a point, please make a sign. And I'll go to you next. Professor Wu, can we please try to make it short?

非常感谢教授，我大概看到还有人想要跟进。我将再给 10 分钟供大家讨论。的免费时间，我看到教授已经举手了。吴教授，我们能不能尽量简短一点？

吴仲义（Wu Chung-I）:

I tried to address the issue of Professors say that, I sort of don't quite agree, I think in science, we always need the modeling hypothesis, we always know that our models are wrong. But without the model without hypothesis, we cannot progress. And I don't think viruses more complex than xxx which I work on, or human or plants. So I think the viral a model to guide our thinking and approach is absolutely necessary. But my original point was raised in the context of papers about early origin. And I think this Lancet paper, it's actually Lancet archive is absolutely interesting that I urge everybody to read it if it's correct as they claim. Everything we discussed today will be totally changed. Trust me that I read the paper very, very carefully that the group had published another paper. It's not that they identified the sequences, the sequences actually have the three correct mutations, and that makes it very believable. So please read this paper from the researchers at University of Milan. That's all I want to say here.

我试图解决教授所说的问题，我有点不太同意，我认为在科学中，我们总是需要建模假设，我们总是知道我们的模型是错误的。但是没有假设的模型，我们就无法进步。而且我不认为病毒比我研究的 xxx 更复杂，或者比人类或植物更复杂。所以我认为用一个模型来指导我们的思维和方法是绝对必要的。但我最初的观点是在有关早期起源的论文中提出的。我认为这篇 Lancet 论文，它实际上是 Lancet 档案，我敦促每个人阅读它，如果它像他们声称的那样正确。我们今天讨论的一切都将完全改变。相信我，我非常非常仔细地阅读了这篇论文，因为该小组发表了另一篇论文。并不是他们确定了序列，序列实际上具有三个正确的突变，这使得它非常可信。所以请阅读米兰大学研究人员的这篇论文。这就是我想在这里说的。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

So you were talking about the preprints with the Lancet. Okay, we would wait for the official publication. Okay, Jonathan.

所以你在谈论柳叶刀的预印本。好的，我们会等待官方发布，好的，乔纳森

Jonathan Stoye:

I agree absolutely. It would be nice to keep the politicians out of things. But how do you do that? As scientists it would be great if we could do things as scientists. How do you please the scientists or politicians out?

我绝对同意。让政客们置身事外就好了。但是你怎么做，作为科学家，如果我们能像科学家一样做事，那就太好了。你如何取悦科学家，或者让政客袖手旁观？

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

And this seems to be a point where everybody agrees. Okay, so that was your intervention. Okay. Anybody else who wants to say something? Professor Forster. Just go ahead.

这似乎是每个人都同意的一点。好的，这就是你的意见。还有其他人想发言的吗？福斯特教授，请继续吧。

Peter Forster:

First of all, I just wanted to offer some common ground between what you said our host and Professor Jonathan Stoye on the Italian study. I looked at the Italian immunological study, and I agree that the baseline there doesn't look as if it's conclusive to me. But on the other hand, I do agree that if you just calculate using the mutation rate when the epidemic started, then you do get dates, which are autumn, so that that is on your side. So I hope that's common ground. So we don't argue amongst each other, like Eric was warning us against. And the other thing is, I think there is no point saying politicians aren't allowed to comment or uneducated people aren't allowed to comment. I think as scientists, we need to provide a plausible, well founded solution, and then all these counter arguments will disappear naturally. I think we shouldn't focus on criticizing politicians or telling them not to comment, I think we should focus on getting our story well-founded and correct. And then all the other problems are solved.

首先，我只是想在我们的主持人和 Jonathan Stoye 教授关于意大利研究的内容之间提供一些共性的看法。我看了意大利的免疫学研究，我同意那里的基线对我来说似乎不是决定性的。但另一方面，我确实同意，如果您只使用流行病开始时的突变率来计算，那么您会得到确定的日期，即秋天，所以这对您有利。所以我希望这是共同点。所以我们不会互相争论，就像Eric警告我们一样。另一件事是，我认为说不允许政治家发表评论或不允许未受过教育的人发表评论是没有意义的。我认为作为科学家，我们需要提供一个合理的、有根据的解决方案，然后所有这些反驳就会自然而然地消失。所以我认为我们不应该专注于批评政客或告诉他们不要发表评论，我认为我们应该专注于让我们的故事有根据和正确。然后所有其他问题都解决了。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Absolutely. I agree with you. And I think that, you know, this whole discussion has been a breath of fresh air for me to hear people who know what they're talking about to talk about this. Any other comments, any other intervention? And somebody would like to make about this? Okay, if not. Do we have any questions? Should I open the floor for any possible Q&A. I do see a comment here. But it's not really it seems like a rhetorical question, instead of a real question about science. Do we have anybody who are listening to this, and who would like to ask a question to any of our panelists? If so, please, do that now. If not, since this is the only comment I have gotten so I think I should read it to you don't read it by this person called Fernando Munoz. He said when WHO asked for a second investigation into Wuhan, it negates the first investigation and places a question mark on the competence and honor ability of the whole WHO team. However, if WHO was compromised, why should China accept a second investigation? And why even asked for an investigation into fort Dietrich. But if who was not compromised, why should we need a second Wuhan investigation? This all points at this question. Who would benefit from muddy the waters? If anybody would like to comment on that? Okay, Jonathan, you have a hand up?

我绝对同意你的看法。我认为，你知道，整个讨论对我来说是一股清新的空气，让我听到真正懂的人在谈论专业的内容。有人有其他意见，有人想解决这个问题吗？如果没有。我们观众里是否有什么问题吗？我看到有评论。但这似乎并不是一个关于科学的问题。因为这是我得到的唯一评论，所以我想我应该读给大家听，提问人叫 Fernando Munoz。他说，当世卫组织要求对武汉进行第二次调查时，它否定了第一次调查，并对整个世卫组织团队的能力和荣誉能力打上了问号。但是，如果世卫组织的能力不足，中国为什么要接受第二次调查？为什么甚至要求对迪特里克堡进行调查。但如果WHO是正确的，我们为什么要进行第二次武汉调查？谁会从浑水中受益？如果有人想对此发表评论？好的，Jonathan.

Jonathan Stoye:

Yeah, I just wanted to say that the WHO’s investigation was always supposed to have more than one phase. So to say that it's a new questioning phase is probably incorrect.

是的，我只想说，WHO的调查不是一个阶段就可以做完的。所以说这不是一个新的阶段。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

But it is interesting. And I would like to have my questions asked here because the WHO does seem to have at least gone back to what they have said in the first report. You know, I mean, the first report that the phase one report says, you know, the lab leak is extremely unlikely. And the WHO’s recent statement says people should build on the recommendations of phase one report, but then it says or options, you know, or another investigation should be focused on the lab. So it seems that the WHO is also contradicting itself here as well. I don't know if everybody is following me. Okay, Professor Wu.

但它很有趣。我想在这里提出我自己的问题，因为世卫组织似乎确实至少回到了他们在第一份报告中所说的那样。我的意思是，第一阶段报告说的第一份报告，实验室泄漏是极不可能的。世卫组织最近的声明说，人们应该以第一阶段报告的建议为基础，但随后又说，或者我们之后开展的调查应该集中在实验室上。因此，WHO 似乎也在这里自相矛盾。不知道大家有没有关注我。好的，吴教授。

吴稚伟（Wu Zhiwei）:

Yeah, I agree with Professor Stoye’s point that the WHO’s investigation could be multi-phase. But the issue is that if the first team that's creation has a conclusion that it's extremely unlikely, then there is an issue here, why you need to come back and look at the issue, which is already concluded as most extremely unlikely, and there are many other possibilities, which actually urgently need to be addressed. This is something, as I mentioned that we are in the heart of a pandemic, we need to focus on the most urgent issue, trying to stop the virus from spreading, and the people are dying. We shouldn’t just address very few politicians concerned. I mean, I fully agree with Professor Foster's point is that we need to talk to them, communicate with politician. What I mean is that I don't mean that we are getting away from the politicians staying in the ivory tower. The issue is that for scientific research, we need to have our own agenda, we need to stick to our own methodology and the concept instead of well, you know, we're still the bind the politicians. So that's something actually I'm criticizing about. It's the same as WHO’s research into the origin of the virus that we need to from the scientific perspective, we need to look in the broader possibilities.

是的，我同意 Stoye 教授的观点，即世卫组织的调查可能是多阶段的。但问题是，如果创建的第一个团队得出的结论是极不可能的，那么这里有一个问题，为什么你需要回来查看这个问题，这个问题已经被认为是极不可能的，并且有许多其他可能性急需解决。正如我提到的，我们处于大流行的中心，我们需要关注最紧迫的问题，试图阻止病毒传播，人们正在死亡。我们不应该只针对少数相关政客。我的意思是，我完全同意福斯特教授的观点，即我们需要与他们交谈，与政治家沟通，我们不是要待在象牙塔里。问题是对于科学研究，我们需要有我们自己的议程，我们需要坚持我们自己的方法论和概念，而不是好吧，你知道，我们仍然是政治家的束缚。所以这实际上是我在批评的事情。所以这和世卫组织对病毒起源的研究一样，我们需要从科学的角度来看，我们需要从更广泛的可能性中寻找。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Okay, Jonathan, I saw you had a handout, but then you took it down. Does it mean that you don't want to meet you have no point to make. Okay. Professor Wu, however, I saw you had one up, but it disappeared as well.

好的。吴教授，我看到你举手了。

吴仲义（Wu Chung-I）:

I'll ask quickly. And I say that everybody wants the whole matter to be done more scientifically and more scientific thinking. And I've been watching WHO, I find all the statement insufficiently scientific, it's really more administratively political than scientific. That's why I keep pushing them to do what scientists screw rather than politicians.

我想很快地问一个问题。每个人都希望整个事情做得更科学，有更科学的思考。我一直在关注世卫组织，我发现他们所有声明都不够科学，它实际上在行政上比科学上更具政治性。这就是为什么我一直敦促他们做科学家而不是政治家的事情。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Got your point. Okay, we do have a question here. And I would like to give it an opportunity by this person called Steven Kay. How do you explain the finding of no viruses in 80,000 animals, the finding of no seroconversion in 9950, pre-epidemic specimens, and the failure of finding posterior diversity in the virus genome. All of these are consistent with a lab origin. So for the scientists who are okay, Professor Shi, thank you.

明白你的意思。好的，我们在这里有一个问题。Steven Kay 提问， 80000只动物中没有发现病毒，9950的标本中没有发现血清转化，以及病毒基因组多样性的失败，你怎么解释。所有这些都与实验室起源相关。史教授，谢谢你。

史卫峰（Shi Weifeng）:

I'm glad to answer this question. Because I have been sampling a lot of water animals and have identified some related coronaviruses from wild animals. We also perform the simulation study and we found for bats, especially how horseshoe bats, they are distributed across a wide geographic range. In most parts of Asia, you can find such bat species. So for the 80,000 animals mentioned in the WHO report, it's just a very small number of the samples. Also, all the animals, all the samples were collected from China. If you expand this sampling efforts to our countries to a much broader geographical range, I think you will find even a PCR positive or antibody positive samples, it's quite easy because such related viruses are just there.

我很高兴回答这个问题。因为我采集了很多水生动物的样本，从野生动物身上鉴定了一些相关的冠状病毒。我们还进行了模拟研究，我们发现蝙蝠，尤其是马蹄蝠，它们分布在广泛的地理范围内。在亚洲的大部分地区，你可以找到这样的蝙蝠物种。所以对于WHO报告中提到的8万只动物来说，这只是样本中的极少数。此外，所有动物、所有样本均来自中国。因此，如果您将这种采样工作扩展到我们国家/地区的更广泛的地理范围，我认为您甚至会发现 PCR 阳性或抗体阳性的样本，这很容易，因为自然界是存在此类相关病毒的。

刘欣（Liu Xin）:

Professor Shi. Thank you very much. I still see a comment which talks about, if you can't rule out the lie, the lab hypothesis. Why don't we overrule the lab hypothesis by conducting a lab audit? I think various panelists have already touched upon that. But in conclusion, does anybody still want to follow up and make a make, you know, one more comment on that or it's Pretty much already clear, I think people already answered that question as well, as you know, probably as professor who mentioned, how can you prove that you don't have something we don't have it? And again, to which point, can you prove that you don't have it? And I think that is not a scientific matter anymore. Of course, that's just my opinion. Thank you so much to all the panelists, we have really gone on and on quite much longer than the original time schedule. But it has indeed been very interesting. I think, by and large. to, to come back to Eric's point about, you know, the optics, I think the great majority of the scientists here do agree that it most likely come from a zoonotic source. Right. I mean, I don't think there is a huge, huge disagreement there. But that's, again, my contraction from this discussion. If there is no clear objection, Shichen it is back to you.

非常感谢史教授。我看到另一条评论，如果你不能排除谎言，即实验室假设。为什么我们不通过进行实验室审核来推翻实验室假设？我认为各个小组成员已经谈到了这一点。但总而言之，是否有人仍然想要跟进并做出决定，或者还有评论想发表的？我认为人们也已经回答了这个问题，正如你所知，可能就像教授说的那样，你怎么证明我们没有的东西？所以我认为这不再是一个科学问题。当然，这只是我的意见。非常感谢所有小组成员，我们比原定的时间延迟了很多。但这确实非常有趣的讨论。总的来说。回到埃里克关于感觉的观点，我认为这里的绝大多数科学家确实同意它很可能来自人畜共患源。我的意思是，我不认为存在巨大的分歧。但这又是我从这次讨论中得出的缩影。如果没有明确的反对意见，士臣请你做总结发言。

田士臣（Tian Shichen）:

Thank you Liu Xin for your wonderful moderation and thanks to our scientists for sharing those enlightening opinions in a very professional and scientific approach and also thanks for audiences. I enjoyed this discussion very much. And do think that scientific discussion are genuinely too few. This fruitful discussion suddenly gives me a new idea. To summarize, I think all of the activity, we do share some consensus, for example, we should rely on scientists to keep it from politicians. Most likely it is related from the nature. And also maybe we should set up some new platform to develop international guidelines, on origin-tracing something like that, I think I will summarize all of the points which we could agree on. And maybe we could come up with a statement signed by the scientist. So that we can really recalibrate the direction of the tracing of the COVID 19 origin. Finally, thanks again very much. And for those common views, we are willing to collect them and send you back for all your sustenance, this is a contribution we can make and I will leave it to future dialogues. We have been already quite beyond the schedule. Thank you all again and look forward to seeing you in future dialogues. Thank you. Bye.

感谢刘欣的精彩主持，感谢我们的科学家以非常专业和科学的方式与观众分享这些有启发性的观点。我非常喜欢这个讨论。并且确实认为科学讨论真的太少了。这次富有成果的讨论突然给了我一个新的想法。总而言之，我认为所有的发言当中，我们确实有一些共识，例如，我们应该依靠科学家、阻止政治家干预，病毒最有可能是与自然有关。也许我们应该建立一些新的平台来制定国际指导原则，关于原发地追踪之类的事情，我想我会总结我们可以达成一致的所有观点，也许我们可以提出一份由科学家签署的声明。这样我们才能真正重新校准 COVID 19 溯源的方向。最后，再次非常感谢。而对于这些共同的看法，我们愿意收集起来，反馈给你们，这是我们可以做的。。再次感谢大家，期待在未来的对话中见到你们。谢谢。再见。

编者注：文字实录由经士智库实习生团队根据机器翻译软件校对整理，未经每位发言人审核，如有出入请以录音录像为准。另所有专家发言仅代表其个人观点，不代表其所属组织或任何官方机构的看法，也不代表经士智库的看法。

参与翻译的实习生团队由经士智库助理研究员李方芳博士牵头，成员包括刘济川、吴丹洋、许竞之、张博涵。由于时间短和专业性强，我们的听抄听校及翻译可能会与嘉宾发言原文有差异，后续我们会在吸取大家反馈意见后进行更新。

完整视频的观看地址为：

1. Youtube平台链接：https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsAhzURT7l4 ；

2. 央视平台链接：https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-23/Full-video-Talk-on-re-calibration-of-virus-origins-tracing-studies-12XrjX1jwBO/index.html）