Did U.S. funding support collaborations between Ralph Baric and Zheng-li Shi before or during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Executive summary
U.S.-based scientists led by Ralph Baric collaborated with Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers including Shi Zhengli on published coronavirus experiments before the COVID-19 pandemic, and U.S. federal grants — routed in part through U.S. organizations — funded related research efforts, though the precise flow of funds to Shi’s lab and whether specific projects were federally funded in Wuhan is disputed in the reporting [1] [2] [3].
1. What the record shows about scientific collaboration
Peer‑reviewed work and contemporaneous reporting document direct scientific collaboration: Baric coauthored high‑profile coronavirus research with Wuhan Institute scientists, including a 2015 paper creating a chimeric virus that combined a bat coronavirus spike with a different viral backbone — a collaboration widely cited in later origin debates [1] [2].
2. Did U.S. money underwrite that work? — the funding trail
U.S. funding certainly supported U.S. researchers and U.S. institutions studying bat coronaviruses, and some of that support was administered through U.S.-based intermediaries that partnered with the Wuhan Institute of Virology; reporting and archived dossiers cite NIH‑linked project numbers associated with Baric and note U.S. grants connected to work on coronaviruses [3] [4]. Investigative reporting and Freedom‑of‑Information driven disclosures show EcoHealth Alliance and other intermediaries sought U.S. funding (and in some cases received NIH funding) for projects that involved samples or collaboration with Wuhan partners, though whether each dollar paid directly to WIV or Shi’s lab is contested in sources [5] [3].
3. The DARPA “DEFUSE” proposal and political amplification
A 2018 DARPA proposal dubbed “Project DEFUSE” that named U.S. and Wuhan collaborators became a flashpoint after disclosures; reporting says Baric and EcoHealth’s Peter Daszak discussed how the proposal described work in Wuhan and strategies to present the project to U.S. funders, and that the DEFUSE bid was ultimately denied — critics have used the proposal to argue concealment of Wuhan involvement, while the investigators have said the work was never executed under that bid [5] [2].
4. Scientific community and funder responses about “gain‑of‑function” and scope
Baric and other U.S. scientists have maintained that NIH officials determined some of the work did not meet U.S. definitions of risky gain‑of‑function experiments and that the SARS‑like viruses used in certain UNC experiments were not closely related to SARS‑CoV‑2, a point emphasized in media interviews and by NIH‑linked accounts [1]. At the same time, watchdogs and some reporters highlight that methods pioneered by Baric (reverse genetics) enabled reconstructing coronaviruses from sequences — a capability noted in public debate about risk and oversight [1].
5. What is agreed, what remains disputed
There is broad agreement in the sources that Baric collaborated scientifically with Wuhan researchers including Shi before the pandemic and that U.S. grants funded related U.S. work; the exact financial trail into the Wuhan laboratory, the degree to which U.S. federal funds directly paid for experiments conducted in Wuhan, and whether particular proposals would have been classified as prohibited gain‑of‑function are disputed and vary across sources [3] [5] [1]. Some reporting asserts direct funding or improper disclosure [3] [4], while other mainstream outlets and Baric’s public statements emphasize constraints on what NIH funded and that certain proposals were not executed [1] [2].
6. How to read competing narratives and the evidence gap
The debate is shaped by three distinct dynamics in the sources: documented joint papers and acknowledged scientific ties (clear); proposals and grant applications that connected U.S. investigators to Wuhan partners, sometimes accompanied by disputed statements about disclosure to funders (partly documented but contested) [5] [2]; and activist or dossier claims that assert prohibited activities or direct illicit funding flows without consensus documentary proof in mainstream reporting [3] [4]. Public records and investigative reporting establish collaboration and U.S. funding of U.S. researchers working on bat coronaviruses, but available sources do not uniformly support a single, definitive account that U.S. federal funds directly paid for specific experiments inside Shi Zhengli’s Wuhan lab during the pre‑ or early‑pandemic period — that precise funding pathway remains subject to further documentary release and official accounting [1] [5].