B1 · Intermediate
14 min
sciencepublic healthpolitical accountabilityvirology
The Origin of the Virus: Science, Secrets, and Politics
El origen del virus: ciencia, secretos y política
This week, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted David Morens, a former adviser to NIAID director Anthony Fauci, for allegedly concealing federal records related to COVID-19's origins. Fletcher and Octavio dig into the science behind the lab leak debate, gain-of-function research, and what this case reveals about the fragile relationship between science and political power.
Esta semana, el Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos acusó a David Morens, ex asesor del director del NIAID Anthony Fauci, por ocultar documentos federales sobre el origen del COVID-19. Fletcher y Octavio exploran la ciencia detrás del debate sobre el origen del virus, la investigación de ganancia de función, y lo que este caso revela sobre la relación entre la ciencia y el poder.
8 essential B1-level terms from this episode, with translations and example sentences in Spanish.
| Spanish | English | Example |
|---|---|---|
| prueba | evidence, proof, test, sample | No hay pruebas suficientes para confirmar el origen del virus. |
| origen | origin | El origen del COVID-19 todavía no está confirmado por la ciencia. |
| ocultar | to hide, to conceal | El gobierno acusó al científico de ocultar documentos importantes. |
| transparencia | transparency | La transparencia en la ciencia es necesaria para la confianza del público. |
| contagioso | contagious | Los científicos modificaron el virus para estudiarlo cuando era más contagioso. |
| pandemia | pandemic | La pandemia de COVID-19 afectó a todos los países del mundo. |
| laboratorio | laboratory | Los científicos trabajaban en el laboratorio de Wuhan con virus de murciélagos. |
| incertidumbre | uncertainty | Después de seis años, todavía hay mucha incertidumbre sobre el origen del virus. |
The indictment came down yesterday, and the name on it is David Morens.
Most people have never heard of him.
But the thing he's accused of hiding, and why anyone would want to hide it, pulls you into one of the deepest unresolved questions in modern science.
Sí, este caso es muy importante.
Yes, this case is very significant.
David Morens trabajó durante muchos años con Anthony Fauci en el Instituto Nacional de Alergias y Enfermedades Infecciosas.
David Morens worked for many years with Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
Y los documentos que él ocultó, según el gobierno, son sobre el origen del COVID-19.
And the documents he allegedly concealed, according to the government, are about the origin of COVID-19.
Right, and Fauci is not named in the indictment, but his shadow is all over it.
What I want to understand today isn't really the legal case, it's the science underneath it.
Because the question of where this virus came from is still genuinely open.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
Hay dos teorías principales.
There are two main theories.
La primera es que el virus salió de un mercado de animales en Wuhan, China, porque un animal infectado tuvo contacto con personas.
The first is that the virus came from an animal market in Wuhan, China, because an infected animal came into contact with people.
La segunda es que el virus salió de un laboratorio en Wuhan, el Instituto de Virología de Wuhan.
The second is that the virus came from a laboratory in Wuhan, the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
And for a long time, the second theory was essentially unsayable in polite scientific company.
You got called a conspiracy theorist.
Which in retrospect is a fascinating thing, because the evidence for either side was never conclusive.
Es verdad.
That's true.
Muchos científicos rechazaron la teoría del laboratorio muy rápido, sin muchas pruebas.
Many scientists dismissed the lab theory very quickly, without much evidence.
Y ahora sabemos que algunos de esos científicos tenían conexiones con el laboratorio de Wuhan.
And now we know that some of those scientists had connections to the Wuhan lab.
Eso es un problema serio.
That is a serious problem.
Walk me through what the Wuhan Institute of Virology actually was.
Because I think most people heard the name and imagined something like a movie villain's lair, which is not quite right.
No, era un laboratorio de investigación muy respetado.
No, it was a highly respected research laboratory.
Los científicos estudiaban coronavirus de murciélagos, porque los murciélagos en Asia llevan muchos virus peligrosos.
Scientists studied bat coronaviruses, because bats in Asia carry many dangerous viruses.
El problema es que también realizaban un tipo de investigación muy controvertida, la investigación de ganancia de función.
The problem is they were also conducting a very controversial type of research called gain-of-function research.
Gain-of-function.
That phrase became a flashpoint, but I suspect a lot of listeners aren't sure what it actually means.
I had to read three papers to feel like I understood it, and I'm still not fully certain I do.
Es difícil, pero voy a intentar explicarlo simplemente.
It's difficult, but I'll try to explain it simply.
Los científicos toman un virus y lo modifican en el laboratorio para que sea más fuerte, más contagioso, o más peligroso.
Scientists take a virus and modify it in the laboratory to make it stronger, more contagious, or more dangerous.
El objetivo es entender cómo los virus pueden evolucionar en el futuro, para preparar medicamentos o vacunas antes de que eso pase en la naturaleza.
The goal is to understand how viruses might evolve in the future, so we can prepare medicines or vaccines before that happens in nature.
So the logic is, essentially, build the threat before nature does, so you have a head start.
I can see the argument.
I can also see why certain other people find that logic horrifying.
Claro, es una situación muy complicada.
Of course, it's a very complicated situation.
Muchos virólogos dicen que esta investigación es necesaria y salvó muchas vidas.
Many virologists say this research is necessary and has saved many lives.
Pero otros científicos dicen que el riesgo es demasiado alto, porque un virus más peligroso puede escapar del laboratorio por accidente.
But other scientists say the risk is too high, because a more dangerous virus can accidentally escape from the laboratory.
And here's where the Morens case starts to bite, because one of the things the U.S.
government had been trying to find out was whether the NIH, through a nonprofit called EcoHealth Alliance, was funding exactly that kind of research at Wuhan.
And documents that might have answered that question seem to have gone missing.
Sí, y EcoHealth Alliance recibió millones de dólares del gobierno americano.
Yes, and EcoHealth Alliance received millions of dollars from the American government.
Usaron ese dinero para colaborar con el Instituto de Virología de Wuhan.
They used that money to collaborate with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Cuando el Congreso pidió los documentos sobre esa colaboración, muchos documentos no estaban disponibles.
When Congress asked for documents about that collaboration, many documents were not available.
There's an email trail that's genuinely damning, not necessarily as proof of a lab origin, but as proof that people with relevant information were trying to manage the narrative rather than let the science breathe.
That's what got Morens, allegedly.
Exacto.
Exactly.
Según el gobierno, Morens usó su correo electrónico personal para evitar las reglas de los registros federales.
According to the government, Morens used his personal email to avoid federal records rules.
También enseñó a otros cómo hacer lo mismo.
He also taught others how to do the same.
Y eso es ilegal en Estados Unidos, porque los documentos del gobierno son del público.
And that is illegal in the United States, because government documents belong to the public.
I spent enough years covering governments that I can tell you: when officials start moving conversations to personal channels, they know what they're doing.
That's not carelessness.
That's a decision.
Totalmente.
Totally.
Y lo interesante es que esta historia no es solo política americana.
And what's interesting is that this story isn't just American politics.
Afecta a la ciencia de todo el mundo, porque cuando los científicos no son transparentes, es más difícil aprender de los errores del pasado para prepararse para la próxima pandemia.
It affects science all over the world, because when scientists are not transparent, it becomes harder to learn from past mistakes and prepare for the next pandemic.
Let's go back to the actual science for a second, because I want listeners to understand what the evidence looks like on both sides.
The natural origin camp, what's their best argument?
El argumento más fuerte es la historia.
The strongest argument is history.
Casi todas las pandemias importantes en los últimos cien años empezaron con un animal.
Almost all major pandemics in the last hundred years started with an animal.
La gripe española de 1918 vino de aves.
The 1918 Spanish flu came from birds.
El VIH vino de chimpancés.
HIV came from chimpanzees.
El SARS de 2003 vino de murciélagos también, a través de otros animales en mercados.
The 2003 SARS also came from bats, through other animals in markets.
Pattern recognition.
And Wuhan had a very large live animal market, the Huanan Seafood Market, which was close to where the first clusters appeared.
That geographic coincidence is real.
Sí, y algunos estudios encontraron evidencia genética del virus en muestras del mercado de Huanan.
Yes, and some studies found genetic evidence of the virus in samples from the Huanan market.
Eso apoya la teoría natural.
That supports the natural theory.
Pero, también hay un problema: el laboratorio de Wuhan está a solo unos kilómetros del mismo mercado.
But there is also a problem: the Wuhan lab is only a few kilometers from that same market.
Así que la proximidad geográfica no resuelve nada.
So geographic proximity doesn't resolve anything.
Which is an extraordinary thing, when you stop and sit with it.
The world's leading bat coronavirus research facility and the apparent ground zero of the pandemic are essentially neighbors.
The probability of that being coincidence is a question scientists have genuinely wrestled with.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
Y hay otro punto importante.
And there is another important point.
Normalmente, cuando un virus salta de animales a personas, los científicos encuentran ese virus, o un virus muy similar, en animales de la región.
Normally, when a virus jumps from animals to people, scientists find that virus, or a very similar one, in animals from the region.
Con el COVID-19, después de seis años, todavía no encontraron el animal original.
With COVID-19, after six years, they still haven't found the original animal.
That's the part that keeps pulling me back toward uncertainty.
With SARS in 2003, they found the animal reservoir, civet cats in markets, within a few months.
Six years on, there's still no smoking bat.
Eso es verdad.
That's true.
Y también existe algo muy específico en el genoma del COVID-19 que es difícil de explicar con la evolución natural.
And there is also something very specific in the COVID-19 genome that is difficult to explain with natural evolution.
Hay una secuencia en el virus que se llama sitio de furina, y este sitio hace que el virus sea muy bueno para infectar células humanas.
There is a sequence in the virus called a furin cleavage site, and this site makes the virus very good at infecting human cells.
Ningún coronavirus natural conocido tiene exactamente esta característica.
No known natural coronavirus has exactly this feature.
The furin cleavage site.
That's the technical detail that, when I first read about it in early 2021, made me think, okay, this deserves more attention than it was getting at the time.
Y algunos científicos dicen que este tipo de modificación es exactamente lo que haces cuando realizas investigación de ganancia de función.
And some scientists say that this type of modification is exactly what you do when you conduct gain-of-function research.
Pero otros virólogos dicen que la naturaleza también puede crear estas secuencias.
But other virologists say that nature can also create these sequences.
El debate todavía existe entre expertos.
The debate still exists among experts.
What gets me is that the scientific community as a whole was capable of reaching a consensus very quickly in early 2020, before all the evidence was in.
And some of the people steering that consensus had, let's say, complicated interests.
That's where Morens sits.
Sí, y la historia de la ciencia tiene muchos ejemplos de esto.
Yes, and the history of science has many examples of this.
Cuando los científicos tienen intereses económicos o profesionales en un resultado, a veces no son completamente objetivos.
When scientists have economic or professional interests in an outcome, sometimes they are not completely objective.
No significa que todos actuaron con mala intención, pero la transparencia es absolutamente necesaria.
It doesn't mean everyone acted with bad intentions, but transparency is absolutely necessary.
And here's what worries me about the next time.
Whatever the actual origin of COVID-19, the institutional response, the suppression of legitimate scientific questions, the movement of records to personal emails, all of that makes the next investigation harder.
You've poisoned the well.
Completamente.
Completely.
Y el mundo necesita prepararse.
And the world needs to prepare.
Los científicos dicen que otra pandemia es posible, quizás inevitable.
Scientists say another pandemic is possible, perhaps inevitable.
Si no aprendemos bien las lecciones de esta pandemia, porque los documentos importantes están escondidos o destruidos, el costo puede ser terrible.
If we don't learn the lessons of this pandemic properly, because important documents are hidden or destroyed, the cost could be terrible.
There's a genuine irony in all this.
The goal of this research was ostensibly to protect humanity from future pandemics.
And the opacity around it may have made us less prepared for the next one, not more.
Exacto.
Exactly.
Y ahora muchos países quieren crear reglas más estrictas para la investigación de ganancia de función.
And now many countries want to create stricter rules for gain-of-function research.
Algunos científicos dicen que estas reglas son necesarias.
Some scientists say these rules are necessary.
Otros dicen que son demasiado restrictivas y que van a detener investigaciones importantes para la salud pública.
Others say they are too restrictive and will halt important public health research.
That debate is real and it's going to intensify.
You can't uninvent the technique.
The question is governance: who decides what gets built in a lab, and who watches the people who decide.
Es la pregunta central.
That is the central question.
Y en este momento, la respuesta no es muy clara.
And right now, the answer is not very clear.
Los laboratorios en diferentes países tienen reglas diferentes.
Laboratories in different countries have different rules.
Un laboratorio puede hacer investigación que está prohibida en otro país.
A lab can conduct research that is prohibited in another country.
Eso es un problema global, no solo americano o chino.
That is a global problem, not just American or Chinese.
We will eventually know more.
I genuinely believe that.
Either through this case, or through China eventually allowing more access, or through some scientist publishing something that cracks it open.
But right now we're sitting with uncertainty, and that's uncomfortable.
Sí, y creo que es importante decir algo difícil: la incertidumbre no significa que todas las teorías son iguales.
Yes, and I think it's important to say something difficult: uncertainty doesn't mean all theories are equal.
Las pruebas todavía no confirman ninguna teoría de forma definitiva.
The evidence still doesn't definitively confirm any theory.
Pero eso no es lo mismo que decir que no sabemos nada.
But that is not the same as saying we know nothing.
That's a distinction worth holding onto.
Uncertainty is not the same as equivalence.
Good scientists know that.
And part of what this case is about is whether the people entrusted with navigating that distinction acted honestly.
We may not like the answer.
Oye, antes de terminar, me fijé en que usaste la palabra 'pruebas' varias veces en esta conversación.
Hey, before we finish, I noticed you used the word 'pruebas' several times in this conversation.
En inglés dices 'evidence'.
In English you say 'evidence.' But in Spanish, 'prueba' has several meanings.
Pero en español, 'prueba' tiene varios significados.
Did you notice?
¿Te diste cuenta?
Now that you mention it, I've seen 'prueba' in contexts that felt completely different.
Evidence is one thing, but I've also seen it meaning a test, like an exam.
And something else I can't put my finger on.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
'Prueba' puede significar tres cosas.
'Prueba' can mean three things.
Primero, evidencia: 'no hay pruebas del origen del virus.' Segundo, un examen o test: 'mañana tengo una prueba en la universidad.' Y tercero, una muestra, como cuando el camarero te da una pequeña cantidad de comida para probar.
First, evidence: 'there is no evidence of the virus's origin.' Second, a test or exam: 'tomorrow I have a test at university.' And third, a sample or taste, like when a waiter gives you a small amount of food to try.
So the same word covers evidence in a legal sense, a school exam, and a taste of something at a market.
That's a lot of work for one word.
English parcels those out to three completely separate words and doesn't think twice about it.
Sí, y el contexto siempre explica cuál es el significado.
Yes, and context always explains which meaning is intended.
En español usamos mucho el contexto para entender las palabras.
In Spanish we rely heavily on context to understand words.
Igual que en este episodio, cuando yo dije 'las pruebas no confirman ninguna teoría', era claramente sobre evidencia científica, no sobre un examen.
Just like in this episode, when I said 'the evidence doesn't confirm any theory,' it was clearly about scientific evidence, not an exam.
Context-dependent meaning.
Which, fittingly, is also the whole problem with the COVID origins debate.
The same data, depending on what you already believe, can point you in completely different directions.
Octavio, I walked right into that one.
Perfectamente dicho.
Perfectly said.
Y así terminamos: con incertidumbre, con 'pruebas' que todavía no son definitivas, y con la esperanza de que la verdad, sea cual sea, llegue antes de la próxima pandemia.
And so we finish: with uncertainty, with 'pruebas' that are still not definitive, and with the hope that the truth, whatever it may be, arrives before the next pandemic.