Unc-ch and wuhan collaborated on coronavirus research
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
UNC–Chapel Hill scientist Ralph Baric collaborated on published coronavirus research with Wuhan Institute of Virology colleagues, including work showing bat SARS‑related viruses could infect human cells and later experimental papers that used sequences from WIV-discovered viruses [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and documents obtained by advocacy groups allege grant proposals and communications showing UNC, EcoHealth Alliance and WIV sought funding in 2018 for work on bat SARS‑related coronaviruses; those documents are the basis for recent state and media probes [4] [5] [2].
1. Connection: documented coauthorship and joint experiments
Published science and reporting show direct scientific links: Baric coauthored work with Wuhan researchers demonstrating bat SARS‑related coronaviruses’ capacity to infect human cells, and later papers described chimeric viruses combining U.S. lab backbones and a bat receptor‑binding domain identified by Shi Zhengli’s team at WIV; those experiments and pathogenesis tests were reported as conducted at UNC [1] [3].
2. What collaborators said and testified
Baric has acknowledged collaboration and also testified that he warned WIV colleagues about biosafety concerns; Vanity Fair reports Baric told congressional investigators he warned Shi Zhengli and that he emphasized UNC did not train WIV staff in his lab techniques [1]. That testimony has driven interest from lawmakers probing the nature and location of specific experiments [5] [2].
3. Allegations from advocacy documents and the DARPA/NIH funding narrative
US Right to Know–obtained documents and subsequent op‑eds allege UNC, EcoHealth Alliance and WIV proposed 2018 projects aiming to construct novel bat SARS‑related coronaviruses with enhanced human‑cell binding via features like a “furin cleavage site,” and that the applicants told DARPA the work would be done at UNC while planning work at WIV with fewer biosafety precautions [4]. Those claims are reported by the Carolina Journal piece and have been central to critics’ arguments about risk and oversight [4].
4. What the reporting confirms and what it does not
Current reporting confirms collaboration, coauthorship, experimental use of sequences from bat viruses discovered by WIV, and grant proposals involving UNC, EcoHealth Alliance and WIV [1] [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention definitive proof that any of these collaborations produced SARS‑CoV‑2 or that a lab accident at UNC or WIV caused the COVID‑19 pandemic; those conclusions are not contained in the cited reporting (not found in current reporting).
5. Political and investigative fallout
State lawmakers in North Carolina initiated probes and requested records from UNC about Baric’s communications with WIV, EcoHealth Alliance and federal agencies; House leaders demanded documents that mirror those sought by U.S. Right to Know and congressional investigators [5] [2]. Media outlets and advocacy groups frame their inquiries differently: some emphasize biosafety and unregulated “extreme virology,” while others focus on scientific context and published methods [4] [1].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas
Advocacy groups such as U.S. Right to Know and outlets like the Carolina Journal present documents to argue researchers hid risky plans and sought to move work to lower‑safety settings [4]. Conversely, reporting that cites Baric and scientific publications emphasizes peer‑reviewed methods, explicit experimental locations for specific papers, and Baric’s stated concerns about biosafety at foreign labs [1] [3]. Readers should note advocacy groups pursue transparency and often litigate for records; political actors may use revelations to press oversight or pursue partisan aims [4] [5].
7. What remains to be answered and why it matters
Key open questions in current reporting include the full content and context of the 2018 grant proposals, the exact scope of work done at each site named in the proposals, and whether any planned experiments departed from approved protocols; reporting to date presents allegations and some documentary excerpts but not a definitive, independently audited chronology tying those proposals to pandemic origins [4] [3]. Those uncertainties explain why investigators and lawmakers continue seeking documents and why the subject remains politically charged [5] [2].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting and document‑based accounts; it does not include later investigative findings, classified materials, or documents outside these sources (not found in current reporting).