The Trump administration has missed a critical deadline, raising serious concerns among biosafety advocates. Its executive order, issued in May, mandated significant changes to federal policies on gain-of-function research—research that has been criticized for its potential to create more dangerous pathogens. The deadline for these changes was September 2, but more than eight weeks have passed without action.
Sean Kaufman, CEO of the biosafety consulting firm Safer Behaviors, expressed frustration. He stated, “The atom has been split in biology with COVID, but nobody seems to be talking about it with urgency.” His remarks highlight the tension between the promises made by government bodies and the realities of their implementation.
At the heart of the delay is a contentious divide between key figures. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. believes there is a direct link between the NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the origins of COVID-19. In contrast, NIH staff remain steadfastly opposed to that narrative. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya is caught in the middle. He once claimed that new regulations would resolve the issues surrounding gain-of-function but later noted that there should be nuanced discussions about the research’s merits.
Despite having months to prepare, the administration faced setbacks. The deadline lapsed due to a standoff over the federal budget, which left key initiatives stalled. After the executive order was signed, Bhattacharya had touted a new set of rules that would “make it go away forever.” Yet, within weeks, his tone shifted to a more cautious approach, emphasizing the need for careful consideration in implementing such policies.
The bureaucratic history of gain-of-function regulations raises additional concerns. In 2016, NIH maneuvered to gain control over the scrutiny of gain-of-function projects, ultimately leading to a policy that lacked rigorous oversight. Emails from former insiders indicate that significant funding had already flowed to the Wuhan lab before the pandemic, and the same officials involved in that policy remain in positions to influence current regulations.
The ambiguity in Trump’s executive order worries some experts. By granting considerable decision-making power to individual agencies, it creates a landscape where accountability could easily slip through the cracks. The potential penalties for circumventing the new rules, including grants bans, are deemed insufficient by critics who argue that a comprehensive approach is necessary for real change.
Staffing changes may also be contributing to delays in implementing new policies. Gerald Parker, who was instrumental in drafting the executive order, left his post over the summer. His replacement, Anna Puglisi, has not made her stance clear regarding gain-of-function research, although she has expressed concerns about China’s disregard for international norms in this area.
The fallout from these decisions is evident at the NIH. Bhattacharya’s condemnation of previous gain-of-function policies has led to dismissals of advisors who disagreed with his approach. The shifting landscape of leadership could complicate future regulatory efforts. Associate Director for Science Policy Lyric Jorgenson, who supported Biden’s past policies, now has a larger say in gain-of-function regulations, furthering the uncertainty about the NIH’s future direction.
The historical context plays a significant role in understanding current challenges. In 2016, a push for stricter oversight was made, only to be resisted by powerful interests within the NIH. These officials sought to weaken any proposal that could limit their control over gain-of-function projects, resulting in regulations that did little to ensure safety.
Communication and transparency are recurring themes in the ongoing debate about gain-of-function research. Experts argue that oversight should not fall solely on the NIH itself. Alina Chan, a prominent voice in the discussion, insists that an independent authority must be established to prevent self-regulation, ensuring that research does not pose catastrophic risks.
In essence, the Trump administration’s failure to meet its deadline for regulatory reform surrounding gain-of-function research reflects both a lack of urgency and the complexities of navigating established bureaucratic interests. The echoes of earlier debates around biosafety and oversight continue to resonate, raising vital questions about accountability in the face of future pandemics. The stakes are high, with a significant legacy of past decisions hanging in the balance as the nation confronts ongoing public health challenges.
"*" indicates required fields
