With the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) epidemic, many Western academic institutions and media outlets have referenced the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, one of China’s biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) maximum-security biolabs.
The majority of these mentions refer to an article titled “Inside the Chinese lab poised to study world’s most dangerous pathogens” that appeared in the science journal Nature in February 2017.
That article discussed certain “concerns” that the lab was about to undertake experiments on highly hazardous pathogens, a subject germane to the situation now playing out in China.
First, this article said that China’s BSL-4 lab, right from its inception, was intended not only for disease outbreak response, but also to increase China’s authoritativeness in the field of microbiological research.
When Japan built its first BSL-4 lab in 1981, it was limited to operating as a BSL-3 biolab, handling only lower risk pathogens. This changed in 2015, with an outbreak of the Ebola virus, when it started working on ways to fight biosafety hazards.
The Wuhan lab was built in 2015, and immediately began conducting research into high-risk pathogens such as hemorrhagic fever and SARS, but kept its high level biosafety risk under wraps.
Second, the Wuhan biolab is situated on the Yangtze River flood plain, and even though no major earthquake has ever been recorded there and the facility is constructed to withstand a magnitude 7 earthquake, there are densely populated areas nearby.
In the event of a major natural disaster, the presence of the facility is sure to exacerbate the effect on the local populace.
Given their lack of experience regarding events such as these, the ability of the facility’s personnel to effectively respond to a major natural disaster also poses a significant risk.
Finally, and most importantly, whether the facility can operate in a stable, secure fashion, with transparency and each individual working there being able to speak out, is crucial.
Even though the article was written three years ago, and it was specifically talking about the biolab and not medical institutions, it addresses the topics of planning and management, compound risk assessment implementation, personnel experience and training, and data transparency, mainly from the perspective of management and data structures, and it is very much applicable to an evaluation of the 2019-nCoV outbreak.
Looking at that article, all conspiracy theories aside, it is quite apparent that a lack of transparency is at the heart of how the 2019-nCoV situation has got out of control.
It also explains how the WHO misjudged the epidemic’s potential in its initial stages, allowing it to evolve into a global crisis.
It is therefore possible that the large scale of the crisis was caused, not because of the nature of the virus itself, but the rigid vertical, opaque framework of the system that allowed the epidemic to spiral out of control.
This is even more evident from the scenes broadcast from the frontline hospitals in Wuhan and other cities in China.
In addition, it was due to the centralized nature of the political system in China, which has made it difficult to understand the situation, that the WHO recently upgraded the 2019-nCoV to a “public health emergency of international concern.”
For Taiwan, which is prevented from joining the WHO, how to obtain the latest information about the outbreak to adjust its response to the crisis is an issue of pressing importance.
Shih Po-jung is a media commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry