United States of America

Having described the complexity of the question of the origin of Sars-Cov2, the main players and their research (GOF, etc.), then the history of the pandemic (part 1 and part 2), we can give the opinions of the various parties, without any of them being totally convincing.

After describing the main issues and key players (part 1)i, we will now trace the prehistory of Covid-19, followed by its history, which has received more media coverage.

A Covid-19 epidemic (acronym for ‘coronavirus disease 2019’) was officially declared in January 2020 in the city of Wuhan, then quickly turned into a pandemic spreading throughout the world. The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (for ‘Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome’), responsible for this pandemic, led to lockdowns being imposed on everyone, regardless of age group or susceptibility to the disease. It has disrupted the lives of billions of people. But where did the virus come from? This three-part article aims to describe what is known about the origin of this virus and why it should matter to us, here and now. All those involved in this pandemic story are undoubtedly hiding part of the truth.

In the first part, we explain the issue and why it may be of interest to us, even after the pandemic is over, and describe its main players. In the second part, we will review the history of this pandemic. In the third part, we will give the opinions of various institutions on its origin.

A few months ago, Living Carbon, a US start-up, announced that it had developed and planted genetically modified poplar trees in 2023. These trees are said to absorb more quickly carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases whose current accumulation in the atmosphere and oceans is causing problems for the Earth’s climate. As part of this program, Living Carbon is acquiring carbon credits to finance its work. The aim is to reduce the photorespiration of poplar and pine plants. What is photorespiration? What would be the ecological repercussions of this modification of photosynthesis?

“Artificial intelligence” (AI) is used to extract and restructure information from raw or unstructured data. Companies are using it to identify phenotypic traits associated with genetic sequences. Referring to a recent patent application by the company Inari, the German NGO Testbiotech points out the risks associated with the combination of new genomic modification techniques (NGT) and AI. It condemns the possible abuses of patentability and the need for robust GMO regulations. However, Inari has already filed other similar applications, which raises questions about the legal impact of such rights and their adaptation to AI-driven technologies.

The digitization of living organisms is the subject of a growing number of projects. Computer data, generated and stored in ever-larger “data centers”, are used by “artificial intelligence” matrices. These data are of all kinds: genetic sequences, proteins, etc. In these fields, which require increasing natural resources, investments are multiplying.

Xenotransplantation in humans is the subject of one announcement after another. This involves transplanting an organ or tissue from a genetically modified animal into a human, to alleviate the shortage of human organs. The “new genomic techniques” are used to genetically modify donor animals. Does the use of these techniques raise new questions of animal ethics?

In March 2024, the European Commission announced measures aimed at driving what it called a “biotechnology revolution”, including a proposal for a “law” in 2025. This announcement came at a time when a number of legislative dossiers relating to biotechnology had already reached an impasse, such as the deregulation of plant GMOs. As Denmark, a fervent supporter of biotechnology, prepares to take over the Presidency of the Council of the EU from July 2025, is the Commission planning to bring everything together in a general “biotech law” to complicate political debates and force the issue through? The European Parliament has just taken up the issue on its own initiative.

43 detections of insects having acquired resistance to the Bt proteins supposed to kill them were listed in a scientific article in 2023. 43 cases out of 73 studied, i.e. more than half. For the authors of the article, the use of insecticidal GMOs has been crowned with success, as in several cases it has made it possible to reduce or even eradicate local pests. But failures also occurred due to resistance. The authors believe that the future lies in a combination of technologies, among which is RNA interference.

Between 1 January 2021 and the present day, the European Union has had to deal with almost fifty cases of the illegal presence of GMOs on its territory. Most of the cases reported by the national authorities involve GMO plants originating in Asian countries such as Vietnam and Thailand, but also in other countries such as Ukraine, the United States and, more surprisingly, France… GMO micro-organisms have also been detected in batches of food additives used in human and animal nutrition.

In a recent article, researchers detail several ongoing projects for the genetic modification of viruses. Some of these could be deliberately released into the environment. On February 7, 2024, the European Parliament asked the European Commission to study the potential deregulation of these GMO viruses. A general overview of those projects seems therefore necessary.

Toulouse-based Micropep Technologies has just had one of its fungicidal micropeptides approved in the United States. The technology, developed and patented by this CNRS spin-off, is aiming for European approval by 2030. However, these micropeptides are raising questions about their potential impact on ecosystems.