国新办举行新冠病毒溯源情况新闻发布会
国务院新闻办新闻局副局长、新闻发言人寿小丽:
Shou Xiaoli:
女士们、先生们，大家上午好！欢迎出席国务院新闻办新闻发布会。今天发布会的主题是新冠病毒溯源情况。今天我们请来科技部副部长徐南平先生，国家卫生健康委副主任曾益新先生，中国工程院副院长、北京协和医学院校长、国家呼吸医学中心主任王辰先生，中国-世界卫生组织新冠病毒溯源联合研究专家组中方组长梁万年先生，中科院武汉国家生物安全实验室主任、武汉病毒所研究员袁志明先生。请他们为大家介绍相关情况，并回答大家感兴趣的问题。
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning! Welcome to this press conference from the State Council Information Office (SCIO). The topic of the press conference is COVID-19 origin tracing. Today, we have invited Mr. Xu Nanping, vice minister of science and technology; Mr. Zeng Yixin, vice minister of the National Health Commission; Mr. Wang Chen, vice president of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, president of the Peking Union Medical College, and director of the National Center for Respiratory Medicine; Mr. Liang Wannian, team leader of the Chinese side of the joint expert team of WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2; and Mr. Yuan Zhiming, director of the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, and researcher at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), Chinese Academy of Sciences. They will introduce the relevant information and take your questions.
首先，我们请曾益新先生作介绍。
Next, I will give the floor to Mr. Zeng.
国家卫生健康委副主任曾益新:
Zeng Yixin:
各位媒体朋友们上午好，很高兴今天有这么多的记者们来参与我们介绍新冠病毒溯源工作的发布会，因为这是一个很专业的问题。事实上自疫情发生以来每一个负责任的国家，每一个有责任感的科学家都很希望把新冠病毒的来源搞清楚。这对于防止类似的疫情再次发生有非常重要的意义。今年3月30日，世界卫生组织正式发布了世卫组织召集的新冠病毒全球溯源研究：中国部分的联合研究报告，全球的溯源研究有了良好的开端。世界各国政府、科学家和媒体对这个报告都非常关注。报告发布几个月了，发布这几个月以来越来越多科学证据表明这份报告是一份很有价值、权威的、经得起科学检验、经得起历史检验的报告。报告的结论是科学的，产生的过程也始终坚持科学原则。
Friends from the media, good morning. I’m very glad to see so many journalists present at this press conference regarding COVID-19 origin tracing, as this is a very specialized issue. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, all responsible countries and scientists have been eager to find out where the coronavirus came from. Solving the question will greatly help prevent similar pandemics. On March 30, the World Health Organization (WHO) released the joint study report “WHO-convened Global Study of Origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part,” marking a good start for the global study of the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Governments, scientists, media outlets around the world have paid great attention to the report. Over the past few months since the report was released, more and more scientific evidence has proved it is a valuable and authoritative report that stands the test of science and time. The conclusions of the report are scientific, as they were made on the basis of scientific principles.
下面，我先简单跟大家回顾一下这个报告的来历。
First, let’s review the background of the report.
在与世卫组织合作开展溯源研究之前，尽管国内的疫情防控任务很繁重，但是我们还是组织了多学科的团队在溯源方面做了许多工作。正是以这些工作作为基础，我们的专家在去年7月和世卫组织先遣来华专家共同商定制定了工作任务书（TOR），此后，中国严格按照TOR来开展溯源相关研究工作。
Before the joint study, China had organized a multidisciplinary team to do a lot of work on origin tracing, despite arduous epidemic prevention and control tasks. It was on the basis of this work that our experts and the WHO experts to China discussed and jointly formulated the Terms of Reference (TOR) last July. Since then, China has carried out origin-tracing studies in strict accordance with the TOR.
今年年初，世卫组织国际专家组正式来华开展病毒溯源工作，病毒溯源全球研究中国部分的工作。中国秉持公开、透明、科学、合作的原则，全力支持世卫专家组工作，我们和地方政府一起尽全力组织协调相关单位，完全满足世卫专家参访的要求，让世卫专家去了所有他们想去的单位，包括金银潭医院、华南海鲜市场、武汉病毒研究所等9家单位；会见了所有他们想见的人，包括医务人员、实验室人员、科研人员、市场管理人员和商户、居民、康复的患者等等，联合溯源研究工作量巨大，溯源专家非常辛苦，但他们对每个问题、每个数据都认真地分析、深入地研究，经常是废寝忘食、通宵达旦。他们的专业性和科学精神我们非常敬佩，所以在这里我想代表中国政府对世卫组织的国际专家们致以深深的谢意。
At the beginning of this year, the WHO international expert team arrived in China and started the China part of the global study of the virus origins. China upheld the principles of openness, transparency, science, and cooperation, and gave full support to the expert team. Together with local governments, we have done our best to coordinate relevant organizations to meet the requirements of the experts. The experts visited a total of nine places they wanted to visit, including Jinyintan Hospital, the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, and the WIV. They talked with everybody they wanted to talk with, including medical workers, laboratory staff members, researchers, market managers, merchants, residents, and recovered patients. The joint origin-tracing study involved a heavy workload, but the experts carried out careful and in-depth analysis into every question and every piece of data. They often worked around the clock, forgetful of their sleep and meals. We deeply admire their professionalism and spirit of science. On behalf of the Chinese government, I would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to the international experts.
第二，讲讲这次研究的主要结论。
Second, I would like to talk about the conclusions of the study.
这次溯源研究报告是全球溯源研究的中国部分，专家组得出以下结论：蝙蝠和穿山甲中发现的与新冠病毒关系最密切的冠状病毒，从序列来看是和新冠病毒同源性最高，但是这些病毒仍然不足以证明是新冠病毒的直接祖先。尽管同源性很高，但还是有一定差距。结合临床流行病学、动物和环境检测等各个方面的研究结果，联合专家组最终确定了病毒出现途径的几种可能性：第一种，人畜共患病直接溢出是“可能到比较可能”，也就是从动物宿主直接溢出到人是”可能到比较可能”。第二种，通过中间宿主引入是“比较可能到非常可能”，通俗讲就是病毒自然宿主是某种动物，动物通过中间宿主再过渡到人身上，这个是“比较可能到非常可能”。第三种，通过冷链传入，在去年各地的一些散发疫情中陆续发现了冷链传播有可能引入病毒，所以认为是可能的。最后一种可能性，实验室引入是“极不可能”，英文表述是“Extremely Unlikely”，是这么一个研究结论。
The report is an account of the China part of the global study of the virus origins. The expert team reached the following conclusions. The coronaviruses found in bats and pangolins are most highly related to SARS-CoV-2 and share the highest homology with SARS-CoV-2 by sequencing. However, neither of the viruses identified so far from these mammalian species is sufficiently similar to SARS-CoV-2 to serve as its direct progenitor. Although the homology is high, there is still much difference. Based on research results in various fields, such as clinical epidemiology, zoology, and environmental testing, the joint study team assessed the likelihood of different possible pathways for the introduction of the virus. First, direct zoonotic spillover is considered to be a possible-to-likely pathway. Second, introduction through an intermediate host is considered to be a likely-to-very-likely pathway. To put it simply, this means the virus would have been transmitted from an animal reservoir to an intermediate host, followed by transmissions to humans. This a likely-to-very-likely pathway. The third potential pathway is introduction through cold food chain products. Some sporadic outbreaks in many places last year showed that introduction through cold food chain products was possible. So, this is considered a possible pathway in the report. At last, introduction through a laboratory incident is considered to be an extremely unlikely pathway.
第三，关于下一阶段的溯源工作。
Third, let’s talk about the next step for tracing the origin of the virus.
一方面，对于中国部分报告中明确需要补充完善的任务，我们正在积极支持相关单位和科学家持续地开展，努力地推进，并且会及时向世卫组织反馈。也就是说上一次的遗留任务我们要尽快完成。另一方面，中国部分的溯源报告为下一步全球框架下多国多地共同开展溯源研究指明了方向，我们应该沿着这个方向继续前进。特别要强调的是此次世卫组织召集的新冠病毒溯源联合研究中国部分的工作，我们认为是一次出色的国际合作。我们与世卫组织共同探索出一套新发突发传染病全球溯源行之有效的工作机制和工作方式。世卫组织专家们与中方专家建立了良好的合作机制，双方配合十分默契，与专家组能够相互合作、能够配合默契，这对推进溯源工作有非常大的意义。专家组始终坚持科学严谨的专业态度，对每个专业问题反复讨论、反复研判，这是一种非常好的模式和机制。所以我们非常希望参与到此次溯源研究的国际专家团队能够继续在下一步的溯源工作中发挥作用，把他们的宝贵经验充分运用到后续的全球溯源研究工作中去，为彻底弄清楚新冠病毒的源头作出贡献。
On the one hand, we have been actively supporting relevant departments and scientists to continue the tasks that need to be supplemented and improved, which are clarified in the China part of the joint report of WHO-convened global study of origins, and will give timely feedback to the WHO. In other words, we will complete the remaining tasks as soon as possible. On the other hand, the China part of the joint report has pointed out the direction for the next step of joint study of origins in various countries and localities under the global framework, and we should continue to move forward along this direction. I want to emphasize that the China part of WHO-convened joint study on the origins of the COVID-19 is an excellent example of international cooperation. We worked with the WHO and jointly explored a set of effective working mechanisms and working methods for global origin tracing of emerging infectious diseases. WHO experts have established a sound cooperation mechanism with Chinese experts. The cooperation between the two parties has been very close, which is of great significance to promoting the global tracing of the origins of the COVID-19. The expert group has always upheld a scientific and rigorous professional attitude, repeatedly discussing and researching every specific issue. This is a very good model and mechanism. Therefore, we sincerely hope that the international team of experts who participated in this study on origins can continue to play a role in the next phase of relevant work and make full use of their valuable experience in the follow-up global tracing study, making contributions to get to the bottom of the origin of the COVID-19.
病毒溯源问题是个复杂的科学问题，牵扯到很多学科、牵扯到很多不同领域专家，同时也是世界难题，像艾滋病、埃博拉、中东呼吸综合征，2003年的SARS、2009年的禽流感，对这样一些疾病的溯源工作，后来证明都是非常艰难的，有一些到现在还没有搞清楚。所以，下一阶段溯源工作应该坚持在世卫组织的统筹协调下来开展，在第一阶段研究的基础上，组织多国的优秀专家们深入开展，要坚持科学家为主体，加强交流合作和信息共享，在科学的轨道上开展新冠病毒的溯源工作。
Origin tracing is a complex scientific matter that involves many disciplines and experts in many different fields. It is also a global problem. The origin tracing of diseases such as AIDS, Ebola, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, SARS in 2003, and avian flu in 2009 all proved to be very difficult, and some of their origins still remain undiscovered. Therefore, for the next phase, the origin tracing work should be conducted under the overall planning and coordination of the WHO and based on the first phase of study. Outstanding experts from multiple countries should be organized to carry out further studies. It is necessary to ensure that scientists must be the main actors in the research. We also call for strengthening exchanges, cooperation and information sharing. We should scientifically carry out the work of tracing the origin.
我就先说这些作为开场白，谢谢大家！
That’s all for my opening remarks. Thank you!
寿小丽:
Shou Xiaoli:
谢谢曾益新副主任的介绍。下面进入提问环节，提问前请各位记者通报所在的新闻机构，请媒体朋友们开始提问。
Thank you, Mr. Zeng, for the introduction. Now the floor is open to questions. Please identify your news outlet before raising questions.
中央广播电视总台央视新闻频道记者:
CCTV:
正如刚才讲到的，病毒溯源是个长期复杂的科学问题，在1918年的大流感，2009年H1N1暴发，以及艾滋病全球流行后都进行了相关溯源工作。此次新冠病毒的溯源工作已经在全球开展，它的意义和原因是什么？谢谢。
As mentioned earlier, tracing the origin of a virus is a long-term complex scientific issue. Relevant origin tracing work was carried out on the 1918 flu pandemic, 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and the global AIDS epidemic. This time, the inquiry into the origin of the COVID-19 has also been carried out globally. What is its significance and the reasons for it? Thank you.
中国工程院副院长、北京协和医学院校长、国家呼吸医学中心主任王辰:
Wang Chen:
我来回答这个问题。这是一个非常重要而且必要的科学问题和卫生问题。因为大家知道传染病是有三个重要环节，第一个是传染源在哪里；第二个是传播途径如何；第三个是传给谁，谁能被感染上，也就是所谓的易感者。这三个环节构成了我们认识传染病三个重要的科学环节和科学要素，而溯源问题是跟传染源有关系的，也是跟传播途径有关系的。因此，把溯源问题搞清楚了，就可以回答这个传染病病原是哪儿来的，既对本次传染病的发生有重要价值，也对未来防控其他传染病有重要借鉴意义。全世界科学界对这个问题深感兴趣，是我们需要去关注和探索的重点问题。因此，这个问题值得我们去探索。但像刚才曾主任所讲那样，我们要意识到它有相当的复杂性，需要一个特别客观的、科学的态度加以探索。
Let me answer this question. This is a very important and necessary scientific and health matter. There are three important issues of an infectious disease. The first is the source of infection; the second is the transmission route; and the third is who is likely to be infected, the so-called susceptible groups. These three issues are important scientific links and scientific elements for us to understand the infectious disease. Origin tracing is related to the issues of source and transmission route. Therefore, by clarifying the issue of origins, we can answer the question of where the pathogen of this infectious disease came from. It holds important value not only for this infectious disease, but also has reference significance for the prevention and control of other infectious diseases in the future. The scientific community around the world is deeply interested in this issue, and it is a key matter that we need to focus on and explore. Therefore, this matter is worth exploring. But as Mr. Zeng said just now, we must realize that it is complex, and we need to hold a particularly objective and scientific attitude when probing into origins of a virus.
日本朝日新闻记者:
Asahi Shimbun:
我有两个问题，第一，世卫组织上周提出针对中国第二阶段的溯源调查，调查包括对武汉海鲜市场的研究，对武汉病毒研究所等研究机构的审计。他们要求中方可以展示透明度，你们怎么看待这个事情？会不会准备再次接受溯源调查？第二，世卫组织在3月发表了在中国的溯源研究报告，称不可能从实验室泄漏病毒，但是有一部分科学家在5月的《科学》杂志上发表了一个意见，认为应该同时考虑病毒自然产生和从实验室泄漏这两种可能性，有两个国家最初暴发新冠疫情，对于病毒是自然产生还是人为因素导致，这一讨论中方的看法是什么？谢谢。
I have two questions. First, the WHO proposed last week to conduct a second phase of the study into the origin of COVID-19 in China, including an investigation into Wuhan’s seafood markets as well as audits of relevant research institutions like the WIV. They expect China to support this process in a spirit of transparency. How do you comment on this? Will China welcome the second phase of the COVID-19 origin probe? Second, in a report released in March on the China Part of the global study of the origins of COVID-19, the WHO said it was extremely unlikely that the virus escaped from a laboratory. However, some scientists have voiced their views in an article published in Science magazine this May, saying that consideration should be given to both a natural spillover and a lab accident. Two countries initially reported the COVID-19 outbreak. Do you think the virus was caused by natural spillover or human factors? Thank you.
曾益新:
Zeng Yixin:
我来回答第一个问题，首先谢谢你提这个问题，我本来也很想就7月15日世卫组织发布的关于第二阶段的病毒溯源计划谈一点我的看法。说实话，当我一开始看到世卫的第二阶段溯源计划的时候，我是十分吃惊的。因为在这个计划里面将“中国违反实验室规程造成病毒泄漏”这个假设作为研究重点之一。从这一点上，我就能感觉到这个计划里面所透露出的对常识的不尊重和对科学的傲慢态度。
I’ll take the first question. Thanks for asking this question. I would like to express my thoughts on the WHO’s plan to conduct the second phase of the study into the origin of COVID-19. Honestly speaking, I was rather shocked over the news, because the plan has listed the hypothesis that China’s breach of laboratory protocols caused the virus to leak as one of the research priorities. From this point, I can feel that the plan showed disrespect for common sense and arrogance toward science.
首先，关于武汉病毒所的一些谣言。比如说三个职工染病，比如说武汉病毒所开展新冠病毒的功能增益实验，就是Gain of function实验，这些都是早就澄清过的，纯属是谣言。
First, rumors including one about three WIV staff falling ill and the other one about the WIV conducting so-called “gain of function” experiments on the virus were dispelled long ago. They are pure lies.
其次，武汉病毒所他们采集的蝙蝠标本中的冠状病毒和新冠病毒序列最近的是RaTG-13，它只有96.2%的同源性。
Second, RaTG-13, the most similar coronavirus that the WIV collected from bat specimens, shares only 96.2% homology with SARS-CoV-2.
还有一点，曾经也有人考虑过新冠病毒是不是人造病毒，是不是有这种可能性。曾经还有印度学者，因为他发现新冠病毒里面有一部分序列，跟艾滋病毒有一定的相似性，所以他推测新冠病毒可能是人造的，他把这个写成一篇论文，但是这篇论文在预印版阶段就遭到国际同行的批驳，后来这个作者主动撤稿了。因为在很多其他的病毒里面都有类似的序列，所以不能凭这一点来推断新冠病毒是人造的。后来还有更多的专家进行深入分析，认为新冠病毒没有人工改造的痕迹。我们做基因工程的同志都知道，病毒人工改造肯定会留有痕迹，新冠病毒没有这个痕迹，所以从根本上否定了人造病毒的可能性。
Moreover, some have wondered if the SARS-CoV-2 is a man-made virus. Some Indian researchers published a preprint scientific manuscript saying that they have found similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and HIV, speculating that the SARS-CoV-2 was man-made. The authors withdrew the paper after being criticized by their international peers. As many other viruses also show similar sequences, we cannot infer simply from this point that the SARS-CoV-2 was man-made. Based on thorough analyses, many experts concluded that there are not any traces of modification in the virus. It’s common knowledge to genetic engineers that the artificial modification of a virus will definitely leave traces. But SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t have any such traces, which totally rules out the theory that it was man-made.
到目前为止，武汉病毒研究所的职工和研究生没有一人感染新冠病毒。武汉病毒所没有开展过冠状病毒增益功能研究，没有所谓的人造病毒。那么哪里来的因为违反实验室规程导致的病毒泄漏呢？所以这种提法，既违反常识也违背科学规律。特别重要的是世卫专家组亲自到武汉病毒所进行实地考察，得出病毒由实验室泄漏极不可能的结论，专家们都是各个领域非常权威、很有经验的，都是世卫组织精心挑选的专家。所以对他们的结论，我们应该是尊重的。所以这次世卫组织公布的，刚才你讲的所谓第二阶段溯源计划，在一些方面可以说是既不尊重常识，也违背科学。我们是不可能接受这样一个溯源计划的。
So far, none of the staff or post-graduate students at the WIV have ever contracted SARS-CoV-2, nor has the WIV conducted any gain-of-function research on coronaviruses. There is no so-called man-made virus there. Then how could it happen that the virus leaked from the laboratory due to violations of lab procedures? Therefore, the “lab leak” theory goes against the common sense and scientific law. More importantly, the WHO sent an expert team on a field trip to the WIV and arrived at the conclusion that a lab leak was extremely unlikely. The experts, selected by the WHO, were authoritative in their respective fields and were rich in research experience. We should respect their conclusions. Therefore, the WHO’s plan on the second phase of the study into the COVID-19 origin, as you mentioned, demonstrates a disrespect for common sense and goes against science in some respects. We cannot accept such a plan.
新冠病毒溯源一定是个科学问题，中国政府一贯支持科学地开展病毒溯源。但是我们反对将溯源工作政治化，我们认为第二阶段病毒溯源应该在第一阶段病毒溯源的基础上来延伸，应该以WHA73.1号决议作为指引，经过成员国充分讨论磋商后开展。对第一阶段病毒溯源时已经开展过的，尤其是已经有了明确结论的，我们就不应该再重复开展。而应该在成员国充分广泛磋商的基础上，推动在全球多国多地范围内开展早期病例搜索、分子流行病学、动物（中间）宿主等方面的溯源工作。
The COVID-19 origin tracing is definitely a scientific issue. The Chinese government has long supported the science-based investigation of the COVID-19 origins, but opposes politicizing the issue. We believe the second phase of origin tracing should be an extension of the first one, guided by the Resolution WHA73.1 and conducted after thorough discussions and negotiations among all WHO members. What was done in the first phase of origin tracing, especially by those that have reached a clear conclusion, should not be repeated. What should be carried out is the origin tracing of early cases, molecular epidemiology, and intermediary hosts in multiple countries and regions based on extensive consultations among WHO members.
我们在第一阶段的世卫组织和中国合作的溯源研究实践，充分证明科学合理的工作方式是由世卫组织和东道国就溯源研究充分协商一致后开展，这不仅体现了对主权国家的尊重，更有利于推动溯源工作有序、顺利、高质量、高效率的开展。我们应该总结吸纳第一阶段的成功实践的经验，在此基础上开展工作。所以我们中国专家组在7月4日曾经向世卫提出了第二阶段溯源工作的中国建议，并与世卫组织专家交流。在这个建议稿里体现了我们的考虑和核心观点，我们希望世卫组织能够认真地考虑中国专家提出的考量和建议，真正地将新冠病毒溯源作为一个科学问题，摆脱政治干扰，积极稳妥推动在全球多国多地范围内持续开展溯源，要加强各国溯源科研的合作交流，要尽快找到最有可能的病毒源头，尽最大努力预防类似的疫情再次发生。我们溯源的目的是什么？就是把病毒的源头搞清楚，然后能够有效地采取措施，防止类似疫情再次发生。所以一定要本着科学原则，按科学规则推动这项工作，这就是中国政府的态度。谢谢。
The WHO-China joint research, conducted in the first phrase of origin tracing, fully demonstrated that the scientific and rational approach is to conduct work after the WHO and the host country reach consensus on origin-tracing research. The approach not only demonstrates respect to sovereign states, but also promotes origin-tracing work to be conducted in an orderly, smooth, high-quality, and efficient manner. It is necessary to summarize and absorb the successful experience of phase-one work and carry out the next phase based on it. Therefore, on July 4, the Chinese expert team proposed its recommendations on the second-phase origins study to the WHO and exchanged views with WHO experts. In the proposal, we voiced our concerns and core points. We hope the WHO can carefully consider the concerns and advice of Chinese scientists, take investigating the origin of the COVID-19 virus as a scientific issue free from political interference, and proactively and properly conduct sustained investigations into the origin of the virus in multiple countries and regions around the globe. We also call for strengthening international cooperation and exchanges in origin-tracing research, finding the most likely source of the virus as soon as possible and preventing the next pandemic like COVID-19 from happening again by every possible means. Our aim is to better understand the source of SARS-CoV-2, in order to handle the virus effectively and prevent similar pandemics from happening again. Therefore, we must equip ourselves with science-based principles, and promote origin-tracing work in line with scientific rules. This is the attitude adopted by the Chinese government. Thank you.
中科院武汉国家生物安全实验室主任、武汉病毒所研究员袁志明:
Yuan Zhiming:
有关病毒实验室泄漏的谣言，武汉病毒研究所多次作了回应，刚才曾主任对这个事情作了详细说明，在这里我也作点补充说明。
The WIV has responded many times to the coronavirus lab leak rumors. Right now, Mr. Zeng elaborated on the same issue, and now I would like to add something.
新冠病毒是自然起源的，这已经成为学术界的普遍共识。在2021年7月5日，24名国际知名专家再次在《柳叶刀》上发表论文指出，目前没有任何的科学证据支持新冠病毒从中国实验室泄漏的理论。在2021年7月7日，来自美国、英国、澳大利亚的这些科学家，在欧洲科学数据共享平台Zenodo上发表预印本文章，指出“没有任何证据表明新冠病毒来自于武汉实验室”；“没有证据表明任何早期的病例与武汉病毒研究所存在联系”；“没有证据表明在大流行之前，武汉病毒研究所拥有或研究过新冠病毒的祖先”。就在前几天，有22名中外科学家在《中国科学》上联合刊发论文，运用经典的进化理论方法，有力论证了为什么新冠病毒只可能来自于自然，而不可能由人为制造，用科学的证据驳斥了“实验室泄漏”的阴谋论。
It has become an academic consensus that the COVID-19 virus evolved in nature. On July 5, 2021, 24 leading experts from around the world published an article again in The Lancet medical journal, noting that the coronavirus Chinese lab leak theory remains without scientifically validated evidence. On July 7, 2021, scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia released a preprint paper in Zenodo, a research data sharing platform in Europe, in which they wrote, “There is currently no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has a laboratory origin. There is no evidence that any early cases had any connection to the WIV, … nor evidence that the WIV possessed or worked on a progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic.” A few days ago, in a joint paper published in the journal Science China: Life Sciences, 22 Chinese and overseas scientists applied a classic evolutionary theory to elaborate why SARS-CoV-2 could only come from nature, rather than being man-made. Using scientific evidence, they refuted the lab leak conspiracy theory on the origin of the virus.
我也注意到一些媒体十分关注武汉P4实验室的安全性，作为生物安全等级、防护等级最高的实验室，武汉P4实验室在2018年正式投入运行以来，没有发生过任何病原泄露和人员感染事故。武汉P4实验室按照国际要求和国家标准进行设计、建设和运行，不仅具有稳定可靠的生物安全防护设施，还建立了一套完整的生物安全管理体系和一支专业化的支撑、管理和维护人员队伍。我可以肯定地说，武汉P4实验室的硬件设施、管理水平、人员队伍和工作方式，和目前世界上运行的其他P4实验室是一样的。有媒体曾经报道，“武汉病毒研究所有3名研究人员曾于2019年的11月份到医院就诊，其症状和新冠病毒是一致的”，这完全是无中生有。如果要搞清这个事实真相，其实非常简单，只需要这些媒体记者告诉我们这三人的姓名，真相就可以水落石出了。其实我们很早就提出了这个建议，但是直到现在我们并没有收到任何回应。
I have also noticed that some media have paid great attention to the safety of the Wuhan P4 lab. As a laboratory with the highest level of biosafety, precaution and protection, the Wuhan P4 lab has never seen any laboratory leaks or human infections since it began operating in 2018. Designed, constructed and run in line with both international requirements and domestic standards, the Wuhan P4 lab has stable and reliable biosafety precautions in place, and has established a set of complete biosafety management systems and a professional team to bolster, manage and maintain its operation. I can assure you that the infrastructure, management, team composition and working protocols at the Wuhan P4 lab are the same as other P4 labs in operation around the world. There were media reports that three researchers at the WIV went to the hospital in November 2019 with all the same symptoms as COVID 19. These reports were created out of thin air. It would have been very simple for us to know the truth if the reporters had provided us with the names of these alleged researchers. In fact, we have long proposed the solution, but received no response to date.
在这里我要强调的是：一、2019年12月30日之前，武汉病毒研究所没有接触、保藏和研究过新冠病毒。二、武汉病毒研究所从来没有设计、制造和泄漏新冠病毒。三、目前为止武汉病毒研究所的职工和研究生，保持新冠病毒的“零感染”。
What I want to emphasize is that first, before December 30, 2019, the WIV didn’t come into contact with, preserve or study SARS-CoV-2; second, the WIV never designed, manufactured or leaked the virus; third, none of the WIV staff members and graduate students have ever been infected with the virus so far.
面对突发的新冠肺炎疫情，武汉病毒研究所利用长期以来积累的平台、技术和人才优势，迅速确定是新型冠状病毒，分离得到了病毒毒株，测定了全基因组序列，并于2020年1月12日向联合国世界卫生组织提交了全基因组序列。这些重要的研究结果，为全球开展病原检测、抗病毒药物筛选和疫苗研究提供了基础，也为全球抗击疫情赢得了时间。我们在分离获得新冠病毒毒株后，组织开展抗病毒药物筛选、疫苗研究和动物模型的建立工作，为科技抗疫提供了有效的支撑。
Facing the sudden outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic, the WIV, leveraging its long-accumulated advantages in platforms, technologies and talent, quickly identified the virus as a new coronavirus and isolated the virus strain. The institute also sequenced the whole genome of the virus and submitted the genome sequence to the WHO under the United Nations on January 12, 2020. These important research results have provided bases for global respiratory pathogen testing, antiviral drug screening and vaccine research, and bought time for the global fight against the pandemic. After the virus strain was isolated, we organized tasks of antiviral drug screening, vaccine research and animal model construction, which effectively supported the scientific and technological response to the pandemic.
当然因为地处武汉，也因为我们抗击疫情的工作，武汉病毒研究所也受到了全球关注，也被卷入到各种谣言中。这些谣言给我们病毒所的科研人员带来了极大压力，也干扰了我们正常的一些科研工作，还对国际学术界的正常学术交流和科技合作带来负面影响。
Certainly, due to its location in Wuhan and its work in fighting the epidemic, the WIV has attracted global attention and been embroiled in various kinds of rumors. These rumors have exerted great pressure upon the researchers at the institute, interfered with some of our normal scientific research, and brought negative impacts on normal academic exchanges and sci-tech cooperation in the international academic community.
面对目前仍然肆虐的新冠肺炎疫情，任何一个国家都不可能独善其身，唯有全球合作，采取协调一致的行动，才能够有效地遏制病毒的蔓延，才能让全球人民重新回到繁荣和谐的生活。武汉病毒研究所将秉承我们开放透明的态度，愿意和各位科学家一道继续为抗击新冠肺炎疫情作出我们的贡献。谢谢大家。
Facing the still raging pandemic, no country can stay immune. Only global cooperation and coordinated action can effectively contain the spread of the virus and restore prosperity and harmony to people around the world. Adopting the attitude of openness and transparency, the WIV is ready to keep working with scientists to contribute to the fight against COVID-19. Thank you.
中国-世界卫生组织新冠病毒溯源联合研究专家组中方组长梁万年:
Liang Wannian:
我再补充一下。在今年1、2月份的时候，世界卫生组织—中国联合专家组在做病毒溯源工作的时候，提出了四条可能的或者潜在的引入途径。有一条是关于实验室的，当时我们在设计四条途径的时候，是借助以往经验和我们对病毒尤其是冠状病毒性疾病的认识提出来的，包括直接从自然宿主到人，通过野生动物也就是自然宿主到中间宿主再到人，通过冷链这种跨境远距离传播以及实验室，这四个都叫“潜在引入途径”，当时用了这个词。如何来判断？当时整个的研究就是围绕这四个途径来收集资料，包括访谈、文献综述、现场考察等。
I would like to add something. During January and February this year, the WHO-China joint expert team, while studying the origins of the virus, put forward four different possible or potential pathways for the introduction of the virus, one among which was through a laboratory incident. The four pathways were proposed based on our past experience and understanding of viruses, especially the coronavirus-related diseases. The four routes include the direct introduction from a natural host to humans; the introduction through wild animals and an intermediate host to humans from a natural host; a cross-border long distance introduction through cold chains; and an introduction through a laboratory incident. All the four routes are called “potential introduction pathways.” How did we assess them? At that time, the whole study was centered on these four routes to collect materials, including carrying out interviews, literature reviews and field inspections.
我就讲实验室的问题，一开始专家组在一块儿讨论的时候，基本上感觉，正如刚才曾主任和袁教授所说的那样，实验室两个最有可能，一个是人工合成，这是科学家们已经有明确的态度，是不可能的。第二个是泄漏，泄漏的最关键点是实验室有没有，刚才两位已经介绍得很清楚，科学界已经很明确，武汉也讲得很清楚，没有做过这个研究。但是为了进一步验证，我们专家组专门到武汉病毒所进行了比较详细的了解，和相关研究人员包括相关管理人员对现场进行了考察，尤其我们对它规范流程、管理制度、安全制度的执行，包括武汉病毒所从事的研究项目，包括过去做的和正在做的一些项目的了解，我们最后回来以后再讨论，从两个维度，一个是支持实验室的这条证据有哪些，一个是不支持的证据有哪些。详细的内容在3月30日世界卫生组织挂网的我们的联合研究报告当中都有详细记录，包括我们访问考察武汉病毒所，都有详细的考察记录，大家有兴趣的话可以去看一下。最终我们得出的结论是“极不可能”。
I will focus on laboratory-related hypotheses. At the beginning, after discussion, the expert team basically thought that laboratory incidents may occur most likely in two cases. One is artificial synthesis, which scientists explicitly find impossible. The other is leakage and the most important point in this regard is whether the laboratory had the virus or not. The answer is that the WIV didn’t engaged in such research before, as Mr. Zeng and Mr. Yuan clearly explained just now. The scientific community and the Wuhan side have made it clear as well. However, for further validation, the expert team specially went to the WIV to get details, and conducted field inspections with relevant researchers and management staff. We obtained information particularly about the institute’s implementation of standard processes, management and security systems, and about research projects the institute was and is engaged in. Then, we came back and discussed again. We talked about evidence that supported the lab incident and evidence that didn’t. The detailed information is recorded in the report on the joint WHO-China study of COVID-19 origins, which was published on the official website of the WHO on March 30. The details about our inspection to the WIV are also included in this report. You are welcome to read it. We finally concluded that the introduction through a laboratory incident was “extremely unlikely.”
当时判断它的可能性用了五个维度，因为很难判断有和无，就是0和1的关系不好判断。所以这次我们对四种可能潜在引入途径，用的一种半定量的连续性的判断方法，从“很有可能”到“比较可能”到“可能”到“不太可能”到“极不可能”，是用这种五个维度的半定量方法。实验室泄漏的这个途径，我们专家是一致观点，最后形成共识的是“极不可能”。在我们讨论这个问题，最后形成联合报告的时候，我们对其他的潜在引入途径，包括从自然宿主直接到人，从自然宿主到中间宿主再到人，包括冷链，我们在下一步的研究当中都提出了比较明确的意见和建议，包括方向、重点、方法学。但是对实验室这块，我们认为“极不可能”，现在没有必要再在这方面投入精力、投入资源。当然我们也不排除，如果有新的一些证据出现，那么可以进一步研究。如果说，有些国家需要在这方面进一步研究的话，我们从中方专家角度来看，建议到还没有开展过像武汉这样的实验室考察的国家去做，至少对其可能存在的泄漏问题，实际是安全问题有进一步了解。针对武汉实验室，我们的联合专家一起做了比较详细的了解和考察，最终得出“极不可能”这个结论。
When we were assessing the possibilities, we adopted a five-scale system. Because it’s not easy to tell whether there is a possibility or not. It is not easy to determine whether a possibility absolutely exists or absolutely doesn’t. So, we adopted a semi-quantitative method to conduct this assessment by utilizing continuous variables, in which we graded the virus’ four possible pathways of introduction with the five rankings of ‘very likely,’ ‘likely,’ ‘possible,’ ‘unlikely,’ and ‘extremely unlikely.’ As for the possibility of a lab leak, our experts reached a final consensus that it is ‘extremely unlikely.’ As we were discussing the issue and finalizing the joint report, we offered relatively clear advice and recommendations for further studies regarding other possible pathways of introduction of the virus, including direct zoonotic transmission, introduction through an intermediate host followed by zoonotic transmission, and introduction through the cold food chain. This advice and recommendations include the objectives, emphases, and methodologies for further studies. However, we think that introduction through a laboratory incident is ‘extremely unlikely,’ therefore, it is no longer necessary to continue to devote energy and resources to study this hypothesis. Of course, we don’t exclude the possibility of new evidence emerging. In that case, further studies can be conducted. If certain countries need to do further studies on this aspect, we suggest, from the point of view of the Chinese experts, that the studies be conducted in countries that haven’t undergone lab inspections like the ones conducted in Wuhan, to at least gain more understanding of possible leaks there, which actually gives rise to safety issues. Together, our experts carried out a relatively thorough exploration and inspection of the Wuhan lab and reached the conclusion that it is ‘extremely unlikely’ to be the pathway of introduction of the virus.
我就补充这么多，谢谢。
That’s all I want to add, thank you.
凤凰卫视记者:
Phoenix Satellite Television:
此前有报道称，2012年云南省墨江县通关镇矿洞中有几名矿工生病，请问根据专家们了解到的信息，生病的矿工与蝙蝠冠状病毒RaTG13或者是新冠病毒有关系吗？谢谢。
Previous reports say that several miners fell ill inside a mine in Tongguan town, in Mojiang county of Yunnan province in 2012. According to what the experts know, is there a connection between these miners and the bat coronavirus RaTG13 or SARS-CoV-2? Thank you.
袁志明:
Yuan Zhiming:
在2012年的7月份、10月份，武汉病毒研究所的团队先后收到了昆明医科大学第一人民医院采集、广州呼吸疾病研究所送来的云南省墨江县通关镇4名矿工的13份血清样品。我们通过了多次核酸、抗体、基因组测序这些检测方法，没有在矿工的血清样品中检测到蝙蝠冠状病毒。这也表明这些病例与新冠病毒是毫无关系的。
In July and October 2012, the WIV team received 13 blood serum samples belonging to four of the miners from Tongguan town, which were collected by the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University and sent by the Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health. We didn’t detect any bat coronavirus in the miners’ blood serum samples after conducting multiple nucleic acid tests, antibody tests, and genome sequencing. This also shows that these cases are not connected to SARS-CoV-2 at all.
刚才你所谈到的RaTG13，这是武汉病毒研究所团队在2013年从云南墨江县采集的生物样品当中检测到的一个病毒序列，而不是从2012年我们收到的矿工病人的血清样品当中发现的。所以没有证据表明，RaTG13和类似的蝙蝠冠状病毒与2012年墨江矿工的疾病有任何关联。
The RaTG13 coronavirus that you just mentioned is a viral sequence detected by the WIV team from the biological samples collected from Mojiang county in Yunnan province in 2013 and was not discovered from the blood serum samples of the sick miners that we received in 2012. So there is no evidence that the RaTG13 coronavirus and similar bat coronaviruses have any connection with the cases of the sick miners from Mojiang county in 2012.
当然，关于RaTG13的来由、特性以及与新冠病毒的差异，武汉病毒研究所已经多次作了公开回应。在2020年7月24号Science杂志上发表了石正丽教授的专访文章，其中也谈到RaTG13和新冠病毒之间的进化距离大约是20年到50年。如果你们还有兴趣去了解这方面，可以去阅读Science杂志上石正丽专访文章的相关部分。谢谢。
Of course, the WIV has made several public responses regarding the origin and distinctive features of the RaTG13 coronavirus and its difference from SARS-CoV-2. On July 24, 2020, the Science magazine published an interview with Professor Shi Zhengli, which disclosed that the evolutionary distance between the RaTG13 coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 ranges from 20 years to 50 years. If you are interested in this, you can read the related content of that interview in the Science magazine. Thank you.
路透社记者:
Reuters:
最近世卫组织对信息透明问题上表示关切，中国是否愿意提供可能揭示新冠疫情在武汉早期传播情况的原始数据？如果不提供的话，请问为什么？第二，武汉病毒研究所管理的病毒数据库，已经在2019年下线。请问武汉病毒研究所是否公布其自疫情暴发以来收集的所有基因序列？最后一个问题，世卫组织和中国的联合研究报告表示，科学家们已经对数千个动物样本进行了测试，中国方面是否会做更多的测试？是否有更多用来繁殖动物的场所、设施要进行研究？还有多少蝙蝠社群可以进行研究？谢谢。
Recently, the WHO discussed concerns over information transparency. Is China willing to provide raw data that might reveal the early transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan? If not, can you explain the reason? The virus database managed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology went offline in 2019. Has the institute published all the genome sequences it has collected since the outbreak? The joint report by the WHO and China said that scientists conducted tests on thousands of animal samples — will China do any more tests? Will China carry out studies on more venues and facilities that are used for breeding animals? How many more bat communities can be studied? Thank you.
梁万年:
Liang Wannian:
我回答第一个和第三个问题。关于早期的原始数据的提供问题，这个问题在一开始1、2月份我们联合专家组在研究的时候，对这个问题作过充分沟通。当时我们说了，既然是世界卫生组织发起的一个国际联合研究团队，17个国外科学家、17个中国科学家是作为一个整体，大家是高度融合的作为一个团队来开展研究工作的。所以我们当时有四个共同的原则来完成世界卫生组织所发起的溯源任务，我们共同制定研究计划、共同进行现场考察、共同分析数据资料、共同向外展示我们的研究报告和结果，是一直按照这些原则来做。
I will answer the first and third questions. When our joint team of experts conducted the study in January and February, we had sufficient discussions over the issue of providing early-stage raw data. At that time, we said that since this is an international joint research team launched by the WHO, the 17 foreign scientists and the 17 Chinese scientists should be acting as a whole and all the members should be highly integrated and conduct the research work as a team. We followed four common principles to complete the origin-tracing task initiated by the WHO. We had been following the principles of making research plans together, conducting on-site inspections together, analyzing data together, and presenting our study report and results together.
对溯源工作最重要的就是早期的信息和资料。刚才曾主任也解释了，疫情发生后中国的科学家在世卫组织发起的联合研究之前，中国的科学家在科技部、国家卫健委等相关部门领导下已经开展了比较广泛和深入的溯源工作。其中，我们这次很关心的是动物、早期病例等数据。我也看到对于早期病人的数据，国外的一些人就提出来我们没有提供，特别提出来早期174例的病人数据。其实这些病人数据，我们当时在武汉期间是全部展示的，因为中国有相关规定，病人的临床数据，包括流行病学的调查数据，包括实验室的检验数据都会牵涉到个人隐私，如果完全泄露出去的话是违背相关规定的。当时我们做了很多工作，把这些数据库集中起来，我们和国外专家一块儿进行分析研究，包括分析什么，最终从中能看到什么样的规律，以及最终报告得出的结论是一块儿做的，只是为了保护病人的隐私，我们不同意提供原始数据，也没有让他们进行拷贝和拍照。当时，国际专家也给予了充分理解，也认为这是一个国际惯例，不仅中国是这种情况。后来我们也多次解释，不提供原始数据，实际上这是一个粗犷的概念。第一，什么叫不提供？其实给你看了，我们共同分析了，我们以为这就是提供了，只不过不让你把数据带走。第二，什么叫原始数据？我们是经过一些整理、分析，最终分析的这些数据，还是要最原始的那些东西、每一个点上的数据？这就有很大的理解上的不一样。我记得当时我们做研究的时候，我们的专家团队，对这一点大家是没有意见的，认为中方提供的这些数据我们是共同研究。我想就这一点来解释一下，并不是说刻意不给，也不是说因为不给，我们研究报告得出的结论就是有偏性的，在我们具体的研究报告中大家能够看到。
The most important thing in the origin-tracing work is the early information and data. Mr. Zeng just explained that following the outbreak of the epidemic, Chinese scientists carried out extensive and in-depth origin-tracing work under the leadership of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the National Health Commission and other relevant departments before the joint research launched by the WHO. Among this work, we were very concerned at the time with the data related to animals and early cases. I have also noticed that regarding the data of early patients, some foreign voices have said that we didn’t provide them, especially the data of the first 174 COVID-19 cases. In fact, these patients’ data were all displayed and shared during our stay in Wuhan. However, China has relevant standing regulations regarding patients’ clinical data, including epidemiological survey data and laboratory test data, which involves personal privacy. If the data is completely released, this will violate the relevant regulations. At the time, we did a lot of work to centralize these databases, and conducted analysis and research together with foreign experts, including on what to analyze, what patterns could be seen in the end, and the conclusions drawn in the final report — we did this work together. It is only because we need to guard the patients’ privacy, that we did not agree to give away the original data, nor did we allow them to copy it or take photos. At the time, international experts also fully understood and believed that this was international routine, not only in China. Later, we also explained many times why we were not handing over the original data. In fact, this is a rough concept. First, what does it mean to say we “did not provide” the data? In fact, we showed it to you and we analyzed it together. We thought it was provided; it’s just that we didn’t let you take the data away. Second, what is the “original data”? Was it the data we finally analyzed after sorting and analysis, or the raw data, every single data point? There are big differences in understanding. I remember that when we were conducting research, our team of experts had no problem on this point, and thought that the data provided by China was for joint research. I want to explain this a little bit: It’s not true that we deliberately didn’t provide the data; neither was it because we didn’t give the data away to the foreign experts, that the conclusions drawn in our research report were said to be one-sided. You can understand this when you look at our detailed research report.
你刚才提的第三个问题，对于动物的研究问题。我们认为在动物源性的引入途径，尤其是从自然宿主到中间宿主再到人，是从“比较可能到非常可能”的，所以特别建议今后应该投入更多的精力，甚至把工作的重中之重集中在这个方向。中国的科学家在这方面已经做了大量工作。当时我们到武汉现场工作的时候，中国方面已经展示了对市场动物的一些检测情况，刚才曾主任详细介绍了，对市场动物的检测，没有阳性的发现，包括对相关市场动物上游的养殖场也进行了全面追溯，也没有发现阳性情况。又进一步扩大范围，对2018年到2020年全国31个省份采集了38000多份家畜家禽样本41000多份野生动物的样本进行病毒抗体或者核酸检测，也没有发现阳性结果。所以这些详细数据，包括它的动物种类、来源，所用的检测方法、检测结果，其实都在联合报告上专门有详细的表格和图表来反映。其实就是一句话，无论是市场内的还是市场上游的，还是全国更广阔领域的，无论是家畜家禽，还是中国的科学家能够找到的野生动物都做了检测，在抗原方面、在抗体方面都没有发现阳性。
The third question you just mentioned was regarding the research into animals. We believe that the introduction pathway of animal origin, especially from natural hosts to intermediate hosts to humans, has gone from “more likely” to “very likely.” Therefore, we particularly suggested that in the future more energy should be invested, and even that the top priority of the work should be concentrated in this direction. Chinese scientists have done a lot of work in this regard. When we went to work on site in Wuhan, the Chinese side had already demonstrated some results of tests on animals in markets. Just now, Mr. Zeng introduced in detail that there were no positive findings from the tests of animals in markets. Also, we had the comprehensive tracing of their upstream farms, and no positive results were found. The scope was then further expanded. We had conducted virus antibody or nucleic acid testing for more than 38,000 livestock and poultry samples, and more than 41,000 samples of wild animals collected from 31 provincial-level regions across the country from 2018 to 2020, yet still no positive results were found. All such detailed data, including the animal species, sources, testing methods and testing results, was reflected in detailed tables and graphs in the joint report. Actually, in brief, whether it was in markets or the upstream of the markets, or in the broader areas of the country, whether it was livestock and poultry, or wild animals that Chinese scientists can find, we have carried out tests on them all, and no positive results have been found in terms of antigens or antibodies.
对于蝙蝠而言，其实中国的科学家也做了大量研究，采集了大量样本，我们当时感觉中国科学家对蝙蝠的研究的广度和深度在世界范围来说，对比其他国家，可能我们是比较好的，做的量也比较大。刚才曾主任和袁教授也说了，做的这些研究找到了与新冠病毒比较相似的病毒，但是还是有差异的。也就是从科学上来说，并没有从中国大量的蝙蝠标本中分离出新型冠状病毒，这一点是要肯定的。相近，并不等于就是。其次，蝙蝠有很多种类，在世界上它是广泛分布的。我们知道在世界上很多地区，并没有开展过蝙蝠的系统研究。现在如果要溯源，科学家基本上的推断或者我们第一期的溯源结果也提示，蝙蝠作为一个野生动物的研究，在溯源上应该作为一个重点。蝙蝠在世界上分布又这么广，它又极可能成为一种宿主，那应该不仅仅局限在中国做研究，应该更广阔的视野，对于有蝙蝠分布的国家和地区，也应该鼓励科学家来做这方面的研究。
In fact, Chinese scientists have also done a lot of research on bats and collected a large number of samples. At that time, compared with other countries, we believed that China had led the world in the breadth and depth of bat research and done more. As Mr. Zeng and Mr. Yuan just mentioned, viruses quite similar to SARS-CoV-2 were found through our research, but there are still differences. Scientifically speaking, it is certain that no SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated from China’s large number of bat samples. Similarity does not mean the same. Secondly, there are many kinds of bats that live widely in the world. As we know that there has been no systematic study on bats in many parts of the world. Studies on bats, as parts of studies on wild animals, should be a focus when tracing origins of COVID-19, according to the basic conclusions of scientists and the results of our first-phase origin tracing. Bats are so widely throughout the world, and they are very likely to be an intermediate animal, so the research should not be limited only in China but also encouraged on a larger scale, such as in countries and regions with a bat distribution.
下一步，动物溯源还是应该作为重点方向和重点领域，是最值得做的一件事。病原体自然进化的过程是最值得我们去关注的。我们的视野不仅仅考虑蝙蝠这一类野生动物，对中间相关的，比如穿山甲、狸类、貂类等，已经通过各国科学家研究所发现的携带或可能携带病原体的这些宿主的分布、可能的源头来进行研究是非常有价值的。当然，对发生过疫情的一些市场，包括养殖场的上下游链条进行进一步的研究也是有价值的。所以这项工作，我知道中国的科学家，其实在上次联合溯源研究以后，也一直在努力在这方面努力做工作。我们也期盼世界的科学家都应该做这方面的工作，但是主要精力应该集中在自然进化，从动物这块作为重点来发力。我就说这么多。
Studies on origins of COVID-19 in animals should be the focus of next phase. This is the most worthwhile thing to do. The natural evolution of a pathogen is the most worthwhile topic of our attention. Our study should not only be limited on wild animals such as bats, but also related animals, such as pangolins, civets, minks and more. It is valuable to study the possible origins and distribution of these intermediate hosts, which have been proved able to carry or possibly carry pathogens through researches carried out by scientists of various countries. Of course, further research on markets that have had outbreaks, including the upstream and downstream chains of farms, is also valuable. I know that Chinese scientists have been working very hard in this regard even after the global study on the coronavirus origins. We have also been expecting that scientists around the world will do this work, focusing on natural evolution and animals. That’s all I have to say.
袁志明:
Yuan Zhiming:
刚才这位记者谈到的病毒所数据库，实际上是研究所团队建立的一个初步的框架，数据库的结构和内容，目前还在不断地完善过程中。考虑到病毒所的网站以及包括石正丽团队在内的众多员工的工作邮箱和私人邮箱受到大量恶意攻击，目前数据库在武汉病毒研究所内部共享。
Just now, the reporter mentioned the database of the WIV, which is a preliminary framework established by the team of the institute. The structure and content of the database are still being improved. Considering the large number of malicious attacks on the institute’s website and the work and private email addresses of many of its staff, including Shi Zhengli’s team, the database is currently shared within the WIV.
项目团队对数据库的一些原始数据进行了分析和系统整理后，将以论文形式发表研究结果，并以可视化方式在数据库中展示和检索。大家知道，科学研究的原始数据经过分析和整理后以论文的形式发表，随后数据库随之公开，这是科技界的一个惯例，病毒所会严格遵循科技界的规则来展示和共享我们的科学数据。
The project team will analyze and systematically sort out the original data of the database and publish research results in the form of papers, which will also be displayed and retrieved in a visual way on the database. As we know, it is the usual practice that the original data of scientific research is published in the form of papers after being analyzed and collated and the database will then be opened to the public. The institute will strictly follow the rules of the sci-tech community in displaying and sharing our scientific data.
武汉病毒研究所一贯坚持科研信息的及时共享，我们在初步获得了病原的鉴定结果后，就及时向世界卫生组织公布了我们的全基因组序列。早在2020年2月3日，石正丽的研究团队就在《自然》杂志上发表研究论文，提出新冠病毒来自于自然界。我们在发现几种药物在细胞水平上具有抗病毒活性后，2月4日就在国际杂志上公开了我们的研究结果。同时，武汉病毒研究所也积极参与由世界卫生组织、美国科学院、法国国家健康与医学研究院、俄罗斯科学院等召开的国际视频音频学术会议，及时和国际同行去分享我们在动物模型的建立、抗病毒药物筛选、新冠灭活疫苗研制等方面的研究成果。
The WIV has always insisted on timely sharing of the information on scientific research. We have submitted to the WHO the whole genome sequence in a timely manner after we obtained the preliminary results of the pathogen identification. As early as Feb. 3, 2020, the research team, led by Shi Zhengli, published a paper in Nature linking the origin of COVID-19 to nature. After we found that several drugs had antiviral activities at the cellular level, we published our research results in international magazines on Feb. 4. Meanwhile, the WIV also actively took part in international video and audio academic conferences, organized by the WHO, the United States National Academy of Sciences, the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research and the Russian Academy of Sciences, to share our research results in the establishment of animal models, the selection of antiviral drugs, and the development of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines with our international counterparts.
作为实验室，我们也长期秉承开放、共享、透明的管理原则，在过去四年里，我们连续举办实验室生物安全管理和技术研讨班，为一些国家培养了一批传染病防控和生物安全管理的人员。我们也积极参与到高等级生物安全实验室全球和区域网络体系，也成为联合国秘书长调查机制的指定实验室，全球高等级生物安全实验室主任会议的成员，与国际同行分享我们的管理经验和科技进展。我们的一些工作人员也分别在法国、澳大利亚、加拿大、美国得到了生物安全的培训，获得了相关资格。同时，我们也邀请到法国、美国、德国、英国、加拿大这些国家的生物安全专家到我们现场进行指导，交流经验，共同推动全球高等级生物安全实验室的安全稳定运行。这就是我想和大家汇报的，谢谢。
Running the laboratory, we have long upheld a set of management principles which feature openness, shared benefits, and transparency. Over the past four years, we have continuously organized workshops concerning lab-based biosafety management and technologies, and helped some countries train groups of personnel in the fields of infectious diseases prevention and control and biosafety management. We proactively participate in the global and regional system of high-containment biosafety labs, and become one of the designated labs under the UN Secretary-General’s Mechanism (UNSGM) and a member of the Group of High-containment Laboratory Directors (GOHLD), and share with global colleagues our management experience and technological progress. Some of our staff have also received biosafety training and relevant qualifications in France, Australia, Canada and the U.S. In the meantime, we have invited biosafety experts from France, the U.S., Germany, the U.K., and Canada to our labs and they provided on-site guidance and exchanged experience with us, so as to jointly promote the safe and stable operation of high-containment laboratories around the world. That’s all. Thank you.
彭博新闻社记者:
Bloomberg:
有两个问题。首先，在世卫国际专家组的专家在武汉开展的实地考察之后，在6月份我们得知有可能会携带新冠病毒的动物，在华南市场有出售的信息。当时在国际卫生专家组去武汉调查的时候，中方是否知道这样的情况？如果知道，为什么不让专家组的专家去华南市场进行实地考察？在中方和世卫组织之间，关于这些动物的情况，又保持着怎样的沟通？第二个问题，关于湖北居民他们有关新冠疫情血液样本，是否后续进行了进一步的检测？
Since the WHO team concluded its field mission in China, research published in June showed that animals that could’ve carried the coronavirus were being sold at markets in Wuhan, including at the Huanan market. Was this known when the WHO team visited Wuhan? If yes, why were the international health experts not allowed to do study in the market? And what investigation of these animals has taken place? Additionally, what communication has there been between China and the WHO about these animals? Second question, what progress has been made in checking for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the stored blood of Hubei residents? Thank you.
梁万年:
Liang Wannian:
我来回答你这两个问题。第一个问题，关于刚才讲的情况。当时，1、2月份武汉联合专家组在工作的时候我们是不知道这个情况的。当时我们联合专家组一块儿花半天时间到华南海鲜市场进行现场考察，并且和有关商户、管理人员都进行了座谈和交流，详细地了解华南海鲜市场的一些情况，包括摊位的分布、销售物品的种类、商户的结构、管理的情况，包括监管的一些规定等等。那时候我们去华南海鲜市场，因为当时已经关闭了，处在没有营业的状态，我们专门进去看了，花了好几个小时，并且进行了座谈讨论。所以华南海鲜市场，无论从销售人员，到顾客的结构和状况，到销售的一些产品，我们能了解的情况，全部都展示了，而且专家在一块儿共同研究和讨论。所以去了，并不是没有去华南海鲜市场。其实，2月10日联合专家组国外的专家回去以后，中国的专家一直和他们保持着良好的沟通和联系，因为结束了现场工作，后面有大量科学问题需要进一步的讨论。
I’ll take your questions. Regarding the information mentioned in your first question, we knew nothing about this situation when the WHO and China joint team were doing their jobs in January and February. At that time, the WHO and China joint team had spent half a day conducting an on-site investigation in the Huanan Seafood Market and discussed and communicated with relevant shop owners and management staff. The joint team went into detail about the situation in the Huanan Seafood Market, including the distribution of booths, the types of items on sale, the composition of shop owners, management details, and certain regulations, to name a few. At that time when we visited the Huanan Seafood Market, it was shut down and all the businesses were closed. We got inside the market and spent hours communicating and discussing. Therefore, we have presented all the information that we know about Huanan Seafood Market, such as those concerning the composition and situation of sales staff and customers, as well as the products being sold. This information was jointly studied and discussed by the experts of the team. Thus, we did go to the Huanan Seafood Market. In fact, since the foreign experts of the joint team left Wuhan on Feb. 10, Chinese experts have maintained good communication and contact with them, because lots of scientific issues require further discussions after the field work was finished.
大家可能注意到了，2月9日联合专家组在武汉现场开了现场新闻发布会后，最终联合研究报告出来是3月30日，世界卫生组织才正式在网上挂出来。在这一段时间，我们几乎每天都和17位国际专家在一块儿沟通交流，是为了完善报告，有很多的问题需要进一步准确的表述。3月30日发布以后，我们现在仍一直保持着良好的关系和比较充分的沟通。比如对后续的工作，对一些科学问题，我们中方的专家和外方的专家还是有紧密联系的，刚才国家卫健委曾主任也说了，关于世卫组织要做第二次溯源的话，中方专家专门在一块研究，根据第一阶段溯源的经验和体会，尤其是基于第一阶段的联合研究报告，双方专家也本着负责任的态度，还专门写了一个中方专家关于世卫组织召集的第二阶段溯源的建议，在建议的起草过程中，我们和世卫组织的相关专家都进行了一些讨论，都做了一些交流。也希望他们从他们的角度，也能给世卫组织提相关建议，为更好地开展全球溯源提供依据。其实在整个溯源当中，科学问题科学家之间都是秉持着求真的精神，我们建立了非常良好的关系。这是回答你的第一个问题。
As you may have noticed, the WHO and China joint team held a press conference in Wuhan on Feb. 9, and the final joint research was published on the WHO’s website on March 30. During this period of time, we communicated with 17 global experts almost on a daily basis in order to improve the report, since many issues required to be stated in a more precise manner. Since the research was published on March 30, we have still maintained good relationships and built sufficient communication with foreign experts. For example, Chinese experts have kept close contact with their foreign counterparts concerning follow-up works and some scientific issues. Just now, Mr. Zeng also mentioned that Chinese experts gathered and conducted research on the WHO’s plan for a second phase of the study of origins of COVID-19 — based on the experience of the first phase of such a study, especially the report of the joint study of the first phase. Experts of both sides have taken a responsible attitude. We have drafted a proposal from the perspective of Chinese experts on the WHO’s plan for a second phase of the study of origins of COVID-19. During the drafting process of the proposal, we discussed and communicated with relevant WHO experts. We also hope that they could put forward relevant suggestions for the WHO from their own perspective, so as to provide a basis for better carrying out the global study of origins of COVID-19. In fact, throughout the whole COVID-19 origin-tracing process, scientists have upheld the spirit of seeking truth regarding scientific issues. We have maintained very good relationships. This is my answer to your first question.
第二个问题，关于血液标本的问题。这个提得非常好。其实溯源的问题，除了早期流行病学病例的追溯外，就是对早期标本，尤其是血液标本，如果能够进行相应的检测，如果发现相关的证据，对溯源最早病例的出现情况会有帮助。根据中国的研究情况，中国最早报告的病例是12月8日，我们研究报告中有说。但是最早报告的病例，最多是一个指示病例，并不意味着他是第一个病例，也就是说这个病毒如何从动物界面跳到人身上去，这一刹那的点所感染的第一个病人我们叫“零号病人”，也就是第一个病例。中国武汉报告的12月8日的病例，我们这次的研究，包括过去中国科学家相关的研究论文，也充分地表明他很可能不是“零号病例”，可能在这之前就可能有病例，但是这个病例在哪里？这又是另一种概念。最早报告病例的地区，并不一定是病毒发生“从动物到人”这个界面过渡的地区。血液标本如果能检测当然最好，我们当时在武汉就专门提出了这种要求，专门邀请了武汉血液所的一些专家进行了充分的讨论。
Your second question is about blood samples. This is a very good question. Regarding the origin-tracing of the virus, apart from the early epidemiological studies, testing of early samples, especially the blood samples, if any pertinent evidence found through tests, will be conducive to tracing the earliest COVID-19 case. According to China’s research, the earliest case reported in China was on December 8, as said in our research report. But the earliest reported case is an index case at most, and doesn’t mean it is the primary case. The primary case refers to the first human who was infected at the moment when the virus jumped from an animal to a human. The person is also called the “patient zero.” Our research and the previous related research papers of Chinese scientists fully suggest that the case reported in Wuhan on December 8 is probably not the primary case. There might be other cases that occurred before. But where did these cases come from? This is another question. The region where cases were first reported doesn’t necessarily mean it is the region where the virus jumped the species barrier from animals to humans. Of course, it’s better to test the blood samples. We had made our proposals in Wuhan, and invited experts from the Wuhan Blood Center to have a full discussion.
当时武汉血液中心的专家来了以后，特别告诉我们，他们现在保留有血样，但是这种留存的血液样本，仅用于应对因输血可能导致的医学争议或者法律诉讼来保留的。它是一个“血辫”，血袋上的导管两边一夹，里边留存少量血浆和血清，它的含量很低。这种保留是根据国家血站管理办法第31条规定，血液制品被用完，到保存期以后两年，血液样本保存期是指全血或者成份血使用以后两年，在这期间内保留这么少的血。除非发生医疗纠纷或者诉讼了，才能拿出来使用。举个例子，比如一个献血员的血，献了以后，给病人用了，最后这个病人感染了肝炎或者艾滋病，这个很可能会通过输送，判断是不是因为输血造成的，这个留下来主要目的是干这个用的。所以一般最少保留两年。保留的方式是血袋导管方式，血清含量是少的。当时认为这个东西到期以后我们是有必要做的。我记得那天一下午，我们和血液中心专家、世卫专家在一块儿讨论，后来我们研究报告当中对这个问题专门进行了表述，也就是下一阶段研究，一旦武汉血液中心的血使用以后，达到两年，达到了管理办法规定的要求以后，我们就会开展一些相关的工作。其实现在中方也正在组织相关的专家和单位就这方面的工作来做好准备。目前，已提前就血液检测方法、检测的实施方案等等都做一些论证，待到期后具体实施。中方相关机构也表示，一旦有结果以后，他们会及时地把结果通知给中方和外方专家组。谢谢。
Experts from the Wuhan Blood Center told us that they had kept blood samples, but the samples were kept for the use of responding to possible medical disputes and lawsuits due to blood transfusion. Such a sample is called a “blood braid.” A small amount of plasma and serum is kept in the pilot tube of a blood bag, which is sealed at both ends. In accordance with the Article 31 of the Measures for the Administration of Blood Stations, the term of preservation of a blood sample shall be two years after the whole blood or the component blood is used. A quite small amount of blood is preserved during the period and it can only be available for use when there is a medical dispute or lawsuit. For example, a donor has donated blood to a patient, and then the patient is diagnosed with Hepatitis or AIDS. The disease is probably transmitted through blood transfusion and samples are kept to determine whether the disease was caused by blood transfusion. So, samples are usually kept for two years at least, and kept in the pilot tube of the blood bag. The amount of blood serum is quite small. We believed that it was necessary for us to conduct the test. I remember that we and the experts from the Wuhan Blood Center and the WHO spent an afternoon discussing it. The issue was then specifically referred to in our report, which will be our future research work in the next stage. Once the blood from the Wuhan Blood Center is used and after the two-year validity term, meaning the samples meet the requirements stipulated in the Measures for the Administration of Blood Stations, we will carry out relevant works. In fact, the Chinese side is organizing related experts and institutions to make preparations for the work. So far, we have made several assessments and evaluations on the testing methods and action plan, which will be implemented after the expiry. Related institutions from the Chinese side also express that, once they have the results, they will deliver them to both the Chinese and foreign expert teams. Thanks.
中国日报记者:
China Daily:
今年2月，世卫新冠病毒溯源专家组表示，病毒通过中间宿主引入是最有可能的传播途径，与此相关联的有冷链产品贸易引发病毒传播的可能性，请问在座的专家和领导怎么看？谢谢。
According to the WHO expert team for origin tracing of SARS-CoV-2 this February, COVID-19 introduction through an intermediate host is “likely-to-very-likely”, and introduction through cold chain products is “possible.” What’s your take on that? Thanks.
王辰:
Wang Chen:
冷链在传染病传播中的作用，这是一个新现象。我是呼吸病专家，呼吸道传染病是传染病里影响最大的一类，对于呼吸道病毒的传播途径，包括冷链，这确实是值得我们充分重视的一个新现象。这个现象概要起来说，第一点从流行病学上我们发现了冷链和疾病流行的对应关系，也就是说在发生感染的病例身上，流行病学溯源上能够找到他可能接触病毒的点是冷链物品表面。从北京新发地的疫情和青岛疫情都可以看到这样的密切关联，也就是发病人接触过冷链，在冷链之外没有发现其他可能的病毒来源。
The role the cold chain plays in spreading infectious diseases is a new phenomenon. I am an expert in respiratory diseases. Respiratory infectious diseases are a dominant type of infectious diseases. The transmission route of respiratory viruses, including the cold chain, is indeed a new phenomenon that deserves our full attention. In summary, first, in terms of epidemiology, we have found associations between the cold chain and the disease. That is to say, through epidemiological investigations, we found that the possible cause of some COVID-19 infections could be traced to touching the surface of cold chain products. The close associations can be seen from the COVID-19 flare-ups in Beijing’s Xinfadi Market and Qingdao. The infected people were exposed to the cold chain, and no other possible sources of the virus were since found, except the cold chain.
第二点，在病毒核酸的检出上，冷链物品上核酸检测是阳性的。特别是在青岛疫情中，在冷链物品表面不但检出了病毒核酸，而且分离和培养出了病毒，这证实了冷链物品表面是有活的病毒存在。这两点结合起来，证据链逐渐完整了。同时，在科学问题的探索上有一个旁证，在“冷”的情况下和相对干燥的环境下，病毒的存活时间、保持感染性的时间比较长。在冬天的时候它甚至可以有21天的存活期。因此，在某个地方如果有病毒，这个病毒沾染到冷链物品上，在低温环境下，从一个地方输送到另一个地方的时候就可以造成跨地区的传播。因此，冷链传播是本次新冠肺炎疫情中我们发现的一个新的非常值得关注的现象，而这个现象造成传播的证据链相对比较完整。
Second, in terms of detection of the nucleic acid of the virus, positive results have been found on cold chain goods. During the outbreak in Qingdao, in particular, the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 was detected on the surface of cold chain goods, and the virus was isolated and cultured, proving the fact that living virus existed on the surface of cold chain goods. Given the two points above, the chain of evidence has become complete. Moreover, there is a circumstantial evidence for the exploration of the scientific issue, which is that the virus can survive and remain infectious for a longer period in a cold and relatively dry environment. It can even survive for 21 days in winter. Therefore, when the virus emerges in a place, and if the cold chain products get the virus, the virus can be transmitted from one place to another in a low temperature during transportation, leading to cross-regional transmission accordingly. The cold chain transmission is a new feature that we have found in the COVID-19 pandemic, which is worthy of attention, and the chain of evidence for the transmission has become relatively complete.
在进一步的病毒溯源过程中，我们也特别建议应当将冷链作为一个重点的溯源线索，目前国际贸易背景下，全球各地人员和物品往来的情况下，冷链环境下人—物的传播，加大了病原传播的复杂性，特别值得进行调查和研究。
To further trace origins of the virus, we suggest that the cold chain should be taken as a key clue. Given the circumstances of international trade, with the exchange of people and goods around the world, the items-to-human transmission in the cold chain environment has made pathogen transmission more complicated, which is particularly worthy of investigation and studies.
新华社记者:
Xinhua News Agency:
疫情发生以来，科研攻关发挥了非常重要的作用。请问在新冠病毒溯源的科学研究方面，科技部开展了哪些工作？取得了什么进展？谢谢。
Since the outbreak of the pandemic, scientific research has played a very important role. Could you talk about the work of the Ministry of Science and Technology in terms of the scientific research on origins of COVID-19? What achievements have been made? Thank you.
科技部副部长徐南平:
Xu Nanping:
谢谢你的提问。今天，我感觉来的记者特别多，大家表情也都非常严肃严谨，说明大家都认识到溯源工作意义重大。我们应该认识到溯源工作本质上是一个科学问题，因此科学研究在溯源工作中发挥了至关重要的作用。中国政府高度重视病毒溯源的科学研究工作。疫情发生后，部署了五大科研方向，溯源是五大科研方向之一，摆在非常重要的位置。中国政府要求中国科技界要尽锐出战，本着“公开、透明、负责任”的态度，要回答好“病源从哪里来”这个重大命题。在这样的背景下，科技部组织中科院、高等院校、中国医学科学院、中国疾病预防控制中心等研究团队围绕动物溯源、人群溯源、分子溯源、环境溯源等重点方向积极开展了科学溯源研究工作。目前取得了一些阶段性进展。
Thank you for your question. There are a lot of journalists today, and everyone looks very serious. It shows that everyone recognizes the importance of the origin tracing of COVID-19. We should realize that origin tracing is substantially a scientific matter, so scientific research has played a crucial role in searching for origins of the virus. The Chinese government attaches great importance to the scientific research on the origin tracing of the virus. After the outbreak, China made five priorities for scientific research, and origin tracing of the virus is one of the priorities which has been considered as very important. The Chinese government called on the scientific research community to follow the principle of “open, transparent and responsible” and put the utmost effort to find out “where the virus came from.” Responding to this call, the Ministry of Science and Technology has organized research groups from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and universities to carry out scientific research on the origin tracing of the virus on a number of priority areas, including animals, humans, molecules and the environment. Some progress has been achieved.
举几个例子，第一个例子是大家比较关心的，发现病毒人传人以后，这个病毒来自何方？是不是身边的动物传递给我们人类？这个病毒会不会从人传到动物？这就涉及到动物溯源问题。我们在疫情刚发生的时候组织了全国科技力量，对全国31个省市自治区的野生动物、家禽家畜进行了病毒检测。这个检测涉及到数十个物种，比如猪、牛、羊、鸡、鸭、鹅、鸽子、火鸡、野兔、野猪等，我们在比较短的时间内一共检测了8万多份样品，没有发现一例新冠病毒抗体或核酸阳性。在这个工作基础上，进一步对身边的动物在实验室里进行病毒的攻毒实验，把这些动物按照易感染、不易感染或者不感染进行排队，这样就做到心中有数，同时也知道动物溯源的一些主要方向。这是第一个工作。
I’d like to name some examples. I think everyone is concerned about the first one. After human-to-human transmission was detected, we wondered where the virus came from; whether it was the animals around us which might have transmitted the virus to humans; or whether it could spread from people to animals. All these regard tracing animal origins. We conducted nationwide viral tests over wild animals, poultry and livestock in 31 provinces, municipals and autonomous regions soon after the epidemic broke out. The tests covered dozens of species, such as pigs, cattle, sheep, chickens, ducks, geese, pigeons, turkeys, wild rabbits and wild boars. We tested more than 80,000 samples over a short period of time, and no COVID-19 antibodies or positive nucleic acid test results were detected. After that, we further conducted COVID-19 challenge trials on animals around us in the lab, and classified them into groups according to their susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, such as highly susceptible, not susceptible or resistant. By doing so, we further understood the situation, and it was also helpful for us to determine the priorities in terms of tracing animal origins.
第二个工作，要找病毒来源，蝙蝠是一个焦点动物。疫情发生后，我们组织了多个团队对蝙蝠携带的冠状病毒进行研究，主要是要研究它与新冠病毒的相似性到底有多大。刚才有几位专家已经介绍了，蝙蝠冠状病毒RaTG13基因组的同源性和新冠病毒达到96.2%，但是我们进一步研究发现，它在结合受体的关键区域（RBD区）上，氨基酸同源性仅为89.3%，在某种程度上就是感染能力非常弱。我们进一步通过实验研究表明，RaTG13和新冠病毒相比，它在感染不同物种上的感染能力差别是非常大的，所以专家综合研判认为RaTG13与新冠病毒存在着较远的进化关系。
Second, in order to define the origin of the virus, bat was one of the animals we focused on. In the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak, we organized several groups to conduct research on the coronavirus carried by bats to identify its similarity with SARS-CoV-2. As several experts said just now, bat coronavirus RaTG13 has a 96.2% genome homology with SARS-CoV-2. Yet further research found it shows only 89.3% amino acid homology in the receptor-binding domain (RBD), meaning that its infectiousness is to some extent very low. Our further experiments showed that the infectiousness of RaTG13 differs greatly from SARS-CoV-2 when infecting different species. As such, experts have concluded based on a comprehensive study and judgement that RaTG13 has a remote evolutionary relationship with SARS-CoV-2.
除了蝙蝠以外，研究人员也发现其他动物携带新冠相关冠状病毒，比如最有特点的是，科学家在海关截获的走私穿山甲中，检测到多株冠状病毒，其中和新冠病毒基因组同源性最高的达到92.4%，比RaTG13要低，但是它在结合受体的关键区域上，有一株穿山甲冠状病毒与新冠病毒氨基酸的同源性高达96.9%，而RaTG13只有89.3%。通过这些研究，科学家认为穿山甲冠状病毒可能在新冠病毒的演化中存在一定作用。
Apart from bats, researchers also found other animals carry SARS-CoV-2-related coronavirus. For instance, scientists detected multiple strains of coronavirus in smuggled pangolins seized by customs. Among them, the highest genome homology with SARS-CoV-2 is 92.4%, lower than RaTG13, but one strain of the pangolin coronavirus shows 96.9% amino acid homology with SARS-CoV-2, higher than RaTG13’s 89.3%. Through those studies, scientists concluded that pangolin coronavirus may have played a role in the evolution of SARS-CoV-2.
我们研究团队同时还对其他方面，比如分子溯源等方面做了很多工作。通过与各国科学家的共同努力，溯源研究取得了积极进展。截至7月19日，中国与美国、英国等国外团队联合发表的溯源相关论文225篇，国内研究团队发表论文352篇，说明我们的溯源研究国际化程度还是非常高。这期间，中美医学科研专家还就疫情防控先后开展了6次视频交流。此外，积极加强科学研究方面的数据和信息共享，依托国家生物信息中心，建立了全球共享的新冠病毒信息库，截至7月19日，已经收集分享全球范围的新冠病毒基因序列253万余条，为全球177个国家和地区近30万用户提供了服务。
Our research groups have done lots of other work such as molecular tracing. The origin-tracing work has made solid progress due to joint efforts with overseas scientists. By July 19, Chinese research groups and their overseas counterparts from the U.S., the U.K. and other countries had jointly published 225 articles related to tracing origins of the COVID-19 virus, and Chinese research groups had published 352 articles. That shows our origin-tracing work is highly international. During this period, Chinese and U.S. medical scientists held six dialogues via video link on prevention and control of COVID-19. On top of that, we have beefed up efforts on data and information sharing regarding scientific research, and established the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Resource database for global sharing under the China National Center for Bioinformation. By July 19, the database had garnered and shared more than 2.53 million collections of worldwide SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences, and offered access to almost 300,000 users from 177 countries and regions.
通过一年多的努力，我们进一步认识到，病毒溯源是一个科学难题，存在着诸多不确定性，可以说任重而道远。同时，我们更应该认识到病毒溯源工作非常重要，我们必须回答好“病源从哪里来”这个重大命题。重任在肩，困难在前，只有沿着科学的道路坚定信心，以科学的态度、科学的方法、科学的事实，开展科学溯源，才有可能最终揭开真相。谢谢。
More than one year of effort has made us realize that tracing origins of the virus is a scientific question full of uncertainties, so there is a long and arduous way to go. At the same time, we should realize that origin-tracing work is very important, and we should give a good answer to the serious and fundamental question about where the virus comes from. With responsibilities falling on us and difficulties lying ahead, we must firm up our confidence and adopt a science-based approach. Only by basing the origin-tracing work on scientific attitudes, scientific methods and scientific facts can we uncover the truth. Thank you.
CGTN记者:
CGTN:
近期有报道称中方研究者在去年删除了已经上传至美国NCBI数据库的疫情早期部分病例基因序列，推测中方对溯源有所隐瞒。请问各位专家怎么看待这个问题？谢谢。
Recently it was reported that Chinese researchers last year deleted some genome sequences of cases from the early stage of the outbreak, which had been uploaded on to the database maintained by the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). It was speculated that China has concealed some information about the origin of the virus. How would you respond to this issue? Thank you.
曾益新:
Zeng Yixin:
这个事情报道出来以后，我们马上对这个事情进行了调查、了解。过程是这样的。报道里面提到的序列删除的问题，是起源于武汉大学的一些研究人员他们发表的一篇论文，在一个国际刊物《SMALL》上，论文题目是《纳米孔靶向测序用于准确和全面检测SARS-CoV-2和其他呼吸道病毒》，从这个名字可以看出来这篇文章报了一种测序方法。3月份他们投稿的时候需要测序结果，就是你建立这样一个方法，你进行了测序，你的测序结果怎么样。需要测序结果来判断测序的准确性，方法是不是可靠。所以研究者将具体的新冠肺炎病毒的测序结果上传到美国NCBI数据库，这个数据库是由NIH，也就是美国国立卫生院管理的数据库。
After it was reported, we immediately conducted an investigation. The report mentions the deletion of SARS-CoV-2 sequences, which is relevant to a paper ‘Nanopore target sequencing for accurate and comprehensive detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses’ published by researchers from Wuhan University in the international scientific journal ‘Small.’ According to the title, we can tell the paper was about a sequencing method. When they made a submission last March, the sequencing results were needed. That means when a sequencing method is created, the results are needed to assure its accuracy and reliability. Therefore, the researchers uploaded their concrete sequencing results of the virus onto the database of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a branch of the National Institute of Health (NIH).
6月9日，这个杂志向研究者发送拟出版的样稿，给他发这个样稿。这时候研究者发现，文章中原来有的描述病例样本病毒测序数据上传地址的内容在审稿过程中被删除了。所以研究者认为，没有必要再把数据存放在NCBI数据库中，研究者于去年6月16日给NIH发邮件要求撤回数据。NIH按照工作流程自行删除，你提出要删除，就自动帮你删掉了，无需通知研究者。既然是你自己提出来的，就把它删了，也没再通知研究者，研究者也把这个事儿给忽略了。所以从这个过程中看出来，这个研究者完全没有去隐瞒、掩盖的必要性，没有这个主观意图。近期，研究者已将所有61个新冠肺炎样本的242条测序相关数据上传到中国国家生物信息中心建设的GSA数据库，这个数据库是公开的，全球研究人员都可以看到，都可以查询。
On June 9, 2020, the journal sent back the researchers the proofread paper where they found the information about where they had uploaded the sequencing results of samples from confirmed cases had been deleted. The researchers thought that since the information about the sequencing was deleted, it was unnecessary to keep those sequencing results on the NCBI.
Therefore, they sent an email to the NIH to request the removal of the data on June 16, 2020. The NIH followed the protocol and deleted the data without notice. When the researchers requested the removal, the data was automatically removed without notifying the researchers. The researchers were not informed, and hence they ignored this. So it is clear that the researchers had absolutely no need, or intention, to hide or conceal any information. Recently, they uploaded all 244 pieces of sequencing data of 61 COVID-19 samples onto the GSA database built by the China National Center for Bioinformation, which is open to global researchers.
根据我们了解，这批样本最早的采样时间1月30日，离疫情开始已经过去了一段时间了，其实它不是早期样本。这些序列对新冠病毒溯源研究能够提供的信息和价值都是很有限的。但是美国的一位研究人员Fred Hutchinson癌症中心的Jesse Bloom没有得到中国学者的确认，完全也不了解这个事情来龙去脉的背景下，就杜撰了所谓的阴谋论，说这是想掩盖的。他这种阴谋论在国际舆论界造成了很不好影响，对中方研究者进行了诬蔑，对中方研究者造成了伤害，他这种做法是背离科学的，也违反了科学伦理。后来论文出来以后也遭到了许多国家专家的批评，你这个做法不科学，违反科学伦理。在疫情流行期间，民众对于专业人员特别是科学家是高度关注，科学家的一言一行都是高度敏感的，所以每一名专家学者都应该明白我们肩上所肩负的社会责任，特别是像疫情流行期间，关于疫情相关的言论，老百姓是非常关注高度敏感，我们一定要明白我们身上的社会责任，要尽自己的努力为全社会的疫情防控做出我们专业人员的贡献，要正确地引导舆情，不要随心所欲的去猜测，造成不好的影响，这会把全社会的疫情防控带歪的。所以我觉得应该提醒每一位专家从这个事情上面接受教训，意识到科学家、专家不是简单的学者，一定是有社会责任的，要把这个重视起来。谢谢。
As far as we know, the earliest sampling in the case was done on Jan. 30, 2020, some time after the initial outbreak, so the sequences cannot count as early ones and thus have limited value or information regarding the study of SARS-CoV-2 origins. However, a U.S. researcher, Jesse Bloom, with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, fabricated the conspiracy theory that this was an attempted cover-up, without any confirmation from the Chinese researchers and with absolutely no understanding the background context of the matter. His actions deviated from science and violated scientific ethics, having not only smeared the Chinese researchers, but also causing a negative effect on relevant international public opinion. After the publication, his paper has been criticized by experts from various countries for its violation of scientific ethics. During this epidemic, the public is deeply concerned about and highly sensitive to the words and deeds of professionals, especially scientists. Therefore, researchers should understand they have their own responsibility to society. Especially during the pandemic, people are highly sensitive to opinions about the disease, so we professionals should not speculate in a deceptive and unrealistic manner. This could cause bad influence on the whole society’s control and prevention of the pandemic. We should instead make contributions and correctly guide public opinion. Here, I want to remind every expert to learn the lesson that experts are more than just experts; they have a responsibility to the society. This deserves recognition. Thanks.
环球时报记者:
Global Times:
目前新冠病毒在全球范围内传播的时间点不断提前，有的人主张应该在世卫组织框架下开展全球多国多地点的研究，尤其是美国也应该接受调查，请问各位专家如何看待这一观点？谢谢。
At present, the start point of the global spread of the coronavirus continues to go further back. Some have proposed studies to be conducted in multiple countries and regions around the globe within the framework of the WHO. The United States, in particular, should also be subject to investigation. What are your opinions of that? Thank you.
梁万年:
Liang Wannian:
我先来回答这个问题，然后请其他的专家补充。随着多国科学家对新冠病毒溯源的持续研究，已经有多项的研究结果表明新冠病毒在全球多地的出现时间要早于我们先前的已知时间。我给大家举几个例子。
I’d like to take this question first before having the other experts share their opinions. Results of ongoing studies into the origin tracing by scientists in various countries showed that this coronavirus emerged in multiple places in the world before the time we knew about its existence. Here are some examples.
比如说2019年11月，一位意大利女性的皮肤活检多处发现新型冠状病毒原位杂交反应性。
Samples from November 2019: A SARS-CoV-2 in situ hybridization reaction detected at multiple parts on skin biopsy of an Italian woman.
2019年11月27日，在巴西一个市采集的废水样本中检测到新冠病毒的遗传物质。
Samples from November 27, 2019: Coronavirus genetic materials detected in wastewater collected from a Brazilian city.
2019年12月13日-2020年1月17日，美国有9个州常规献血存档样本新冠病毒检测抗体有106份呈现阳性反应。
Samples from December 13, 2019-January 17, 2020: Check-ups of donated blood samples for archive in nine U.S. states found that 106 blood samples tested positive for coronavirus antibodies.
2019年12月24日采样的，分别来自于伊朗、巴西和意大利的早期基因序列已经上传到全国数据库。
The early gene sequences collected from Iran, Brazil and Italy on December 24, 2019 uploaded to national databases.
2019年12月中旬，法国有报道中和抗体的流行率增加。
The mid of December 2019: The prevalence of neutralizing antibodies reportedly increased in France.
2019年12月27日，法国有一个咯血患者的咽拭子样本经RT-PCR检测，新冠病毒核酸检测呈阳性。
Sample from December 27, 2019: A throat swab of a French patient with hemoptysis tested positive for coronavirus RNA in RT-PCR detection.
2020年1月，西班牙巴塞罗那采集的废水样本新冠病毒核酸检测呈阳性。
Samples from January 2020: Waste water samples collected in Barcelona of Spain tested positive for coronavirus.
2020年1月2-3月18日期间，美国50个州24079份血液样本中，有9份样本检测到新冠抗体呈阳性。
Samples from January 2, 2020-March 18, 2021: Nine of 24,079 blood samples from 50 U.S. states tested positive for coronavirus antibodies.
我举这么多例子，是前一段各国科学家通过研究得出的一些情况。这也表明，武汉可能不是新冠病毒突破界面的第一现场，新冠病毒的传播存在人或者动物传物后，由物传人，又人传物的复杂循环模式。刚才王辰院士所讲的冷链研究的重要性，实际上这次新冠病毒的整个传播模式的研究，包括溯源研究上都给我们提供了新视野、新课题，甚至是新的需要解决的一个科学命题。就是它的这种传播模式、循环模式，怎么从动物到人，包括动物到物、再到人，它们之间什么逻辑关系？各自的作用和界面点在什么方面？这都提供了一些新的研究思路。
These examples come from recent studies of scientists from around the world, which show that Wuhan might not have been the first place of SARS-CoV-2 inception. The spread of the virus could be complex, with a cyclical infection chain from a human or an animal host to an object, and then to humans and later back to objects. Just now, Mr. Wang Chen talked about the importance of the studies into cold chains. In fact, the studies into the entire transmission pattern of the virus, including its origin tracing have offered us a new vision and a new issue, as well as a new scientific proposition to solve. As for the modes of transmission and circulation, how the virus jumped from animals to people, including from animals to objects and then to people? what is the logical relationship between them? What are their roles and interface points? All shed lights on new research ideas.
下一步无论是早期病例、生物样本、基因序列、天然宿主、中间宿主还是冷链，都离不开全球多国多地共同开展研究；要了解可能导致病毒跨物种传播，进而在全球蔓延的整个的科学过程，就必须深入了解病毒的多样性和在动物宿主中的进化，动物、环境和人类之间的相互作用，以及有助于病毒在人和人之间传播的影响因素。我想这些都是需要今后进一步来做的。
Next, studies into early cases, biological samples, genetic sequences, natural hosts, intermediate hosts and cold chains should be conducted with joint efforts in multiple countries and regions around the globe. To explore trans-species infections and viruses’ global spread, research work ought to be done on the diversity of viruses and their evolution in animal hosts, on the interaction among animals, environment and humans, and on the factors affecting virus infections among people. This is what we need to do in the future.
病毒是人类的共同敌人，无论是预防还是治疗，都需要我们团结来共同应对，在溯源这个重大的，非常复杂的，也是难题的科学问题上，也需要全世界科学家的合作，也需要各国政府、全体民众的共同努力和合作。谢谢。
Viruses are a common enemy of mankind; and in both prevention and treatment, we must unite. The critical, complicated and difficult scientific mission of tracing origins of viruses requires cooperation of scientists across the world, of governments and of all people. Thank you.
王辰:
Wang Chen:
我想简单谈一个观点，刚才梁教授讲的这些事实，国际科学界也发现了，它提示了可能有多源性。溯源过程是如此复杂和多元，因此我们要“真求起源”，就不要局限视野，而应当拓展视野，这是全球各地应当进行多点、多方位、立体溯源的重要的方向性问题。谢谢。
I want to share a view that the findings just mentioned by Professor Liang have also been recognized by the international scientific community, which suggest the possibility of multiple sources. The origin-tracing work is so complex with diversity. If we really want to find the origins, we should not be restricted in our vision but rather broaden it. It is an important issue of direction for the world to make systemic studies of origin tracing in multiple regions and multiple orientations.
寿小丽:
Shou Xiaoli:
感谢各位发布人，感谢各位记者朋友的参与，今天国务院新闻办的新闻发布会就到这里，大家再见！
Thank you, to our speakers and journalists from the media. Today’s briefing is hereby concluded. Goodbye.
来源：国新办 日期：2021年7月26日
|
