With Walls Closing In, German Virologist Christian Drosten Ducks Behind Lawyers

Germany’s Berliner Zeitung newspaper continues to seek accountability while investigating misleading tales spread during the COVID pandemic.

12 minute read

“Please note that in the event of false reporting, we reserve the right to publish your questions and our answers in full, in their original form, to allow the public to compare the reporting with our responses,” reads an April email from Berlin’s university hospital Charité sent to Berliner Zeitung reporter Franz Becchi. “Unfortunately, we have had to consider this option in the past.”

The haughty email came in response to a slew of questions Becchi sent Charité about one of their employees, world-renowned virologist Christian Drosten. In a gushing 2020 profile, Science Magazine dubbed Drosten “The Coronavirus Czar” in the COVID pandemic’s first year. But in recent months, Drosten has fallen out of favor with American reporters as he made some tentative steps to acknowledge that the pandemic likely started from a lab in Wuhan.

During a February meeting of World Health Organization pandemic experts, Drosten presented evidence that a part of the COVID virus called the furin cleavage site was not natural and was probably created in a lab through gain-of-function research.

While praising Drosten in past reporting, writers at Science Magazine and other US outlets now studiously ignore him.

Becchi tells me he would be happy to have Charité or Drosten to publish all their correspondence in the interest of transparency and to fully inform the public. “I couldn’t write about everything I asked them,” Becchi says. “And there is some interesting material that people should know about.”

After Becchi sent even more questions, Charité then hired a global law firm to respond, sending him a 13-page letter that accused him of asking questions that were not “expert” while trying to erect guardrails of “permissible reporting” for Becchi.

“We assume that any one-sided, unbalanced, or otherwise inadmissible reporting will be avoided,” reads the law firm’s letter. “It goes without saying that, in light of your inappropriate wording, our client reserves the right to take legal action with regard to any reporting.”

I have no clue how a reporter’s questions can have “inappropriate wording.” If you do, please leave those thoughts in the comments. Becchi’s article on Charité’s Christian Drosten appeared in German earlier this month. Below is an English translation.

---

Virus experiments in the heart of Berlin – How dangerous is gain-of-function research?

What role do Christian Drosten, the Charité, and a controversial virological method play in the origin of the coronavirus? A search for clues behind laboratory doors.

For some time now, there has been increasing evidence that the coronavirus did not jump to humans via a wildlife market in Wuhan, but originated in the Wuhan Lab of Virology. This view, which was dismissed as dubious during the pandemic, has been endorsed by the US Congress, numerous international experts, and the Federal Intelligence Service. After some hesitation, even Germany's top virus expert, Christian Drosten, is no longer completely dismissing this assumption.

But what consequences would happen with the realization that the virus is not an act of nature, but a human creation? What do these labs do, where are they located, and is a new pandemic conceivable that originated in a lab?

Gain-of-Function: What's Behind the Research Method?

So-called gain-of-function (GoF) research – experiments in which viruses are deliberately made more dangerous – was long considered a marginal topic for specialists. Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, however, it has moved to the center of a debate that has so far been conducted primarily in the United States.

What is scientifically necessary, what is ethically acceptable – and what is politically responsible? Critics call it playing with fire. Proponents counter that without such research, future pandemics would be virtually impossible to prevent.

At the center of this discussion is the question of biosecurity and the ethical limits of scientific curiosity. What if an artificially manipulated, highly infectious pathogen finds its way out of the laboratory – or falls into the wrong hands? While GoF experiments are officially intended to serve civilian health protection, their methods are also of strategic interest to military actors.

This leads to the so-called DURC dilemma – Dual Use Research of Concern: research that may be medically motivated, but at the same time creates knowledge and technologies that can also be used to develop biological weapons. Who benefits from the research? How much are researchers allowed to risk?

An incident sparked a storm of criticism back in 2011: Virologists Yoshihiro Kawaoka and Ron Fouchier – independently of each other – genetically modified the H5N1 avian flu virus so that the virus was transmitted through the air for the first time between ferrets. H5N1 is extremely deadly to humans, but hardly transmissible in its natural form. An artificially transmitted virus – if it escapes or is misused – could trigger a pandemic.

US government restricts GoF research

In the United States, the issue is once again politically relevant. US President Donald Trump has comprehensively restructured health authorities: Critics of previous coronavirus policy, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and epidemiologist Jay Bhattacharya, have been appointed to key positions—as Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), respectively.

The new US administration promises a comprehensive review of pandemic policy. The focus now is on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 in particular. At Easter, the White House reiterated its position that the virus could have originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) – as a result of gain-of-function experiments funded with US money. However, Trump's willingness to provide information is politically motivated: He wants to blame the Chinese, referring to the "China virus" even during the pandemic. This one-sidedness is problematic because it prevents a thorough investigation.

At the beginning of May, Trump signed an executive order severely restricting GoF research on dangerous pathogens and cutting off government funding. A similar moratorium had already been in place under Barack Obama (2014), which was lifted three years later – during Trump's first term in office.

Gain-of-Function Research in Germany

In Germany, the federal government has invested heavily in virus research in recent years: Since March 2020 alone, around 1.8 billion euros have flowed into programs related to coronaviruses, particularly SARS-CoV-2. The first laboratory with the highest security level (BSL-4) was opened at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in Berlin-Wedding in 2015. At the time, the Süddeutsche Zeitung headlined: "Killer Viruses in Wedding."

It's not the only laboratory in the capital: At the Charité Mitte Campus (CCM), the Institute of Virology conducts research in BSL-3 laboratories – also for risk group 3 pathogens such as influenza and coronaviruses. Scientists there work on topics such as virus replication, diagnostics, and the analysis of mutations. The head of the institute is Christian Drosten, who played a key role as a government advisor during the coronavirus pandemic.

In mid-May, Drosten appeared as a guest in the Saxon State Parliament's Corona Investigation Committee. There, the virologist also commented on the topic of laboratory research. In response to a question from a member of parliament, Drosten explained that "gain-of-function" and "loss-of-function" are two approaches from basic research in functional genetics for studying individual gene functions. This type of research does not necessarily have to be conducted on viruses, the virologist said, according to a report by journalist Aya Velázquez. His laboratory does not conduct experiments on viruses. The term "Gain-of-function" is often confused by the public.

Is gain-of-function research carried out in Germany?

But what does Gain of Function (GoF) mean? A spokesperson for the Federal Ministry of Education, Research and Technology (BMFTR) told the Berliner Zeitung: "The term Gain of Function (GoF) does not describe an independent and clearly defined research area and is not a funding priority of the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR)." GoF is an experimental methodology that can be applied in various biomedical research areas alongside other molecular biological methods: "The application of the GoF methodology is not centrally recorded," the spokesperson said.

The German government confirmed in 2021 that GoF research is taking place in Germany. AfD members of the Bundestag asked: "Does the German government have any information on whether employees of the Charité, or rather Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten, are involved in research in the field of GoF?" The German government's response: "Such studies are also taking place in Germany (including at the Charité, Berlin)."

What is virus research at the Charité all about?

The Institute of Virology at the Charité, under the direction of Christian Drosten, coordinates, among other things, the RAPID ("Risk Assessment in Pre-pandemic Respiratory Infectious Diseases") research network, founded in 2017. Funded by the then Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) with four million euros, the five-year project pursued the goal of developing scientific principles for the risk assessment of novel respiratory pathogens.

In the RAPID research network, scientists worked on novel respiratory pathogens, particularly the MERS coronavirus, which can have a mortality rate of up to 30 percent in humans. The project website explicitly mentions "gain-of-function" and "loss-of-function" experiments. According to the BMFTR, however, no GoF methodology, in the sense of a targeted increase in the virulence or transmissibility of pathogens, was used within the project. A spokesperson for the Charité also emphasized in response to a query: "The gain-of-function experiments in the Rapid research network do not involve viruses, but rather cultured cells, and do not involve any risk."

However, the 69-page funding application explicitly mentions the use of a gain-of-function approach – coupled with the applicants' note that they assume they "probably will not generate viruses with increased virulence and DURC potential." This type of research, the findings of which could be used both medically and be relevant to security or military policy, is somewhat contradictory to the subsequent reference to the use of cultured cells to assess the risk level of the experiments. These documents, which were obtained by the Berliner Zeitung, suggest that infectious MERS viruses were used in human cell lines—a system in which adaptations to human receptors cannot fundamentally be ruled out.

Gain-of-Function: An International Matter

Research has also been conducted in the USA: At the University of North Carolina (UNC) in Chapel Hill, virologist Ralph Baric is considered a leading expert in the targeted modification of coronavirus genomes, particularly spike proteins. The Defuse project's funding proposal, published by the research collective DRASTIC in September 2021, explicitly proposed the introduction of a so-called furin cleavage site—a molecular feature that distinguishes SARS-CoV-2 from its known relatives. Baric was listed as a co-applicant and part of the planned research consortium.

In contrast to the US, GoF research was never passionately debated or even restricted in Germany. Drosten is one of the GoF's biggest supporters internationally. The virologist was, among others, a co-founder of the "Scientists for Science" initiative, which in 2014 advocated for a moratorium on research during the American debate surrounding it.

A spokesperson for the Charité hospital told the Berliner Zeitung that Drosten did not appear as a supporter of risky experiments. The debate in the US at the time was about "some interest groups within science developing the idea of fundamentally prohibiting parts of the usual research work on pathogens." This work, he argued, was "essential, for example, to develop vaccines or antiviral agents." A fundamental prohibition would have "resulted in disadvantages in the area of industrial and academic research and development in the US." The "now ten-year-old statement of the international ad hoc working group Scientists for Science does not call for any relaxation, but on the contrary points to existing regulations and their compliance," said the spokesperson.

However, the Scientists for Science website states: "Our most important line of defense is to ensure these facilities are operated safely and adequately staffed to minimize risk—not to restrict the types of experiments that can be conducted." The emphasis here is not on limiting the research itself, but on securing its framework.

For the Charité, this is a "group statement" by American scientists who have consistently "supported" Drosten. However, on the website, Drosten is listed as a "founding scientist."

When Drosten said: "We have to endure the risks"

Back in 2012, Drosten and two colleagues published a guest article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung entitled "We have to endure the risks." In it, the authors spoke out against restrictions on the publication of risky virology experiments and argued that scientific discovery also brings with it uncertainties – risks that society must "endure."

A plea for dangerous research? The Charité disagrees: At the time, they spoke out against the lack of transparency caused by publication bans, not against safety regulations in the laboratory. The term "risks" should be understood in the context of difficult-to-assess benefit-risk assessments – not as a call to tolerate real dangers. But what risks were these, exactly?

Physicist Roland Wiesendanger has made serious allegations against Drosten: In February 2022, in an interview with Cicero magazine, he accused the virologist of "deliberately deceiving" the public about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. A court prohibited the claim for lack of evidence. Wiesendanger's statements, such as that Drosten spread disinformation and untruths in scientific discourse, were, however, considered permissible expressions of opinion. A main trial is pending.

Drosten and the Origin of Coronavirus

Wiesendanger claims that Drosten was part of a group of scientists led by British researcher Peter Daszak who early on committed to the statement that COVID-19 was of natural origin – without providing any evidence. In an open letter published in The Lancet in February 2020, the group classified the laboratory-origin theory as a "conspiracy theory." Drosten was a co-signatory of the statement.

Daszak was president of the American NGO EcoHealth Alliance, which was conducting GoF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, partly with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) led by Anthony Fauci. According to the laboratory theory, SARS-CoV-2 emerged from one of these experiments, "Project Defuse." The controversial research was allegedly led by Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli.

But instead of providing clarification, the laboratory theory was initially attacked and dismissed as nonsense in publications in renowned journals and media reports. In the scientific article "The proximal origin of Sars-CoV-2," which appeared in Nature Medicine in March 2020, scientists identified the pathogen's place of origin as the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan. Only later did it emerge that Fauci himself had contacted the authors and – in effect – commissioned the scientific article.

On February 9, 2020, Drosten wrote an email to the small group of scientists, including Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, and Kristian Andersen. His question was: "Can anyone help me with a question? Didn't we gather to question a specific theory and, if necessary, reject it?"

Drosten acknowledged participating in the video conference but denied any involvement in the publication of the article in Nature.

The Charité spokesperson said that during the conference call, Drosten had already "denied supporting any kind of publication intention because, in his opinion, there was insufficient data available." The publication plan was "explicitly denied in a response by K. Andersen." Drosten then considered the matter closed. He "was no longer included in subsequent communication in which a manuscript was being prepared."

Given this account, it is all the more surprising that Drosten finally signed the statement in The Lancet initiated by Daszak on February 19, 2020, in which the laboratory theory was dismissed as a "conspiracy theory."

The article had a major impact on the scientific and public debate on the origin of the pathogen: From then on, it was no longer conducted, and the natural origin was proclaimed as irrefutable dogma in the various fact checks. Anyone who brought up the topic, like Wiesendanger, was defamed as an idiot or conspiracy theorist.

Today, several international authorities consider a laboratory leak of SARS-CoV-2 to be the most likely scenario for the origin of the virus. US intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and BND share this view. A lawsuit seeking disclosure of these findings was rejected by the Federal Administrative Court in April, citing the public interest.

What connection does Drosten have to the "bat woman" Shi Zhengli?

When assessing Drosten's role, the question also arises regarding his acquaintance with the Chinese virologist Shi Zhengli, the former director of the Department of Virology at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and head of bat virus research. In response to the question: "Can you confirm that you have published scientific papers with the virologist Shi Zhengli from the Wuhan Institute of Virology? If so, in what form did you collaborate with her?", the Charité spokesperson for the virologist replied: "Professor Drosten cannot confirm this. There is no other collaboration either. Claims to the contrary would be false and lack any factual basis."

It therefore remains unclear how or in what form Drosten and Shi Zhengli met each other when they were joint members of the PREDICT consortium, an international research network of the American USAID program that identified zoonotic diseases by monitoring pathogens in wild animals, such as bats, in risk regions. Despite the dissolution of the consortium in 2020, the question remains whether a scientific exchange took place between Zhengli and Drosten.

And an exchange did indeed take place at the beginning of the pandemic—at least, this is what Drosten himself recounts in his book "Alles überstanden" (Everything Overcome)—a Corona conversation with journalist Georg Mascolo. "On January 6, 2020, I wrote an email to my colleague Shi Zhengli, a leading SARS researcher in Wuhan," Drosten claims on page 15 of the book.

Meanwhile, resistance is growing among scientists against the controversial GoF research method. In 2022, Wiesendanger initiated the so-called Hamburg Declaration – an international appeal signed by over 50 scientists. The aim of this appeal is a worldwide ban on gain-of-function research on pathogens with pandemic potential.

The signatories urgently warn of the risks of such experiments, in which viruses are deliberately made more dangerous or contagious – even under high-security conditions. They call for a general ban, including conducting such research in high-security laboratories.

Researchers call for a halt to risky gain-of-function experiments

"Virologists are playing God – they create new viruses and expect the public to simply accept the risks," Wiesendanger told the Berliner Zeitung. He would like to see an open scientific debate about gain-of-function research – something that hasn't happened in Germany so far.

"There have always been accidents in laboratories working with viruses. If viruses are made more deadly or contagious through gain-of-function experiments, even a small accident like the one with SARS-CoV-2 can affect the entire world and have unpredictable consequences," said immunologist Valentin Bruttel to the Berliner Zeitung. In addition to him, the signatories of the Hamburg Declaration include American molecular biologist Steven Quay and US security expert Milton Leitenberg.

Bruttel rose to prominence during the pandemic through an analysis that revealed striking patterns in the genome of SARS-CoV-2 in 2022, typical of laboratory-manipulated viruses. Together with Alex Washburne and Antonius VanDongen, the scientist argued that the pathogen exhibited molecular traces of targeted manipulation, similar to the patterns used in the production of synthetic viruses, for example, at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

For all its scientific potential, gain-of-function research is ultimately a risky gamble with the security of the planet and the health of large segments of the world's population. The international community must ask itself what benefits it expects and what risks it is willing to take.