Ralph Baric and Zheng hi-li shi collaborated over covid spike protein gain of function
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli collaborated on published work that in 2015 described creating a chimeric coronavirus in the lab by placing a bat-virus spike gene onto a SARS backbone to test cross-species risk; that paper and related publications state the chimera could infect human cells but was genetically different from SARS‑CoV‑2 [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and profiles also say Baric tested vaccine candidates against dozens of bat coronaviruses supplied by Shi, and Baric’s lab used spike sequences from Shi’s viral collections in experimental constructs [4] [5].
1. The core, documented collaboration
Baric and Shi are co‑authors on peer‑reviewed work that examined SARS‑like bat coronaviruses and included experiments that combined a spike gene from a bat virus (SHC014 family) with a SARS‑CoV backbone to assess potential for human infection — a chimeric construct described in the 2015 paper and related articles [2] [1] [3]. Reporting and institutional profiles confirm Shi provided spike sequences from bat collections and Baric’s group used them to test cross‑reactivity and vaccine coverage [4] [6].
2. What “gain of function” means here — and what the sources say
The term “gain of function” is used widely in public debate; the work in question created recombinant viruses to test host‑range and pathogenic potential by swapping spike proteins, which directly affect cell attachment — precisely what Baric and colleagues reported in 2015 [1] [2]. Sources describe the chimera as a research tool to evaluate emergence risk and therapeutics, not as evidence that SARS‑CoV‑2 itself was produced by that experiment; the 2015 sequence was later analyzed and said to be very different from SARS‑CoV‑2 after the pandemic began [1].
3. Where the controversy concentrates
Critics emphasize the creation of lab chimeras and the potential to increase transmissibility or host range; supporters and journals defended the work as peer‑reviewed and within then‑accepted norms [7] [2]. Media profiles such as Time and university pages underscore Baric’s long‑standing research purpose — preparing broad vaccines and testing whether existing candidates neutralize diverse bat coronaviruses supplied by Shi’s field collections [4] [6].
4. Disputed claims and what the records show
Some outlets and commentators assert the 2015 work or later collaborations “created COVID‑19” or that Baric “engineered SARS‑CoV‑2.” Those assertions are not supported by the cited peer‑reviewed papers and reporting: the 2015 chimera involved a different spike (SHC014 family) and researchers reported it was genetically distinct from SARS‑CoV‑2 when sequences were compared after 2020 [1] [2]. Allegations that Baric or Shi directly made SARS‑CoV‑2 are present in opinion pieces and conspiracy‑minded sites cited here but are not corroborated by the scientific articles and mainstream reporting in these sources [8] [9].
5. Admissions, denials, and transparency questions
Baric has stated his lab did not host WIV personnel and that collaborations involved sequence sharing more than on‑site joint experiments; reporting notes repeated requests for sequences and later release after discussion with funders and journals [1]. FOIA litigation and congressional scrutiny mentioned in reporting point to continuing debate over the extent and transparency of communications between U.S. labs and the Wuhan Institute, with institutions defending peer review and compliance while critics demand more records [7] [5].
6. Why the scientific community did the experiments — and competing viewpoints
Authors framed the work as proactive risk assessment: testing whether spikes from bat viruses could use human receptors and whether vaccines or therapeutics could counter them — central to pandemic preparedness arguments advanced by Baric and colleagues [2] [4]. Opponents argue such experiments carry inherent risks and should be restricted or more tightly regulated; defenders point to peer review and the goal of anticipating emergent zoonoses [7] [2].
7. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention any direct, documented creation of SARS‑CoV‑2 by Baric or Shi in the cited literature; they do not provide molecular evidence tying the 2015 chimera or other listed constructs to the genome of SARS‑CoV‑2 [1] [2]. They also do not show WIV staff worked inside Baric’s UNC labs, per Baric’s statements [1].
Conclusion — the record in the sources: Baric and Shi collaborated on published experiments that made chimeric coronaviruses by swapping spike genes to assess human‑infection potential and vaccine responses; that work is central to ongoing debates about risk, regulation and transparency, but the peer‑reviewed papers and reporting cited here describe constructs different from SARS‑CoV‑2 and do not show the specific engineered creation of the pandemic virus [1] [2] [4].