Latest stories

AI ready to upend centuries-old military command structures

India's electoral promise is crumbling

Trump's Putin, Zelensky talks chiefly served Russian aims

Its 27 experts, ranging from virologists and epidemiologists to veterinarians and public health specialists, must disclose their affiliations and funding to safeguard independence.

The mission, as WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reminded the world, is simple in principle but fraught in practice:“Bring the debate back to science” because politicizing the origins of the virus“puts the entire world at risk.”

Yet in the United States, that neutrality is under fire. In 2024, a Republican-led congressional committee declared that Covid-19 was“most likely” the result of a laboratory accident in Wuhan - a conclusion echoed, though with“low confidence,” by some intelligence agencies.

Under Donald Trump's second presidency, the United States has once again set itself on a path to withdraw from the WHO, with departure planned for 2026, and has frozen participation in negotiations for a new Pandemic Agreement.

At home, the administration has expanded political control over universities and research institutes, accelerating a brain drain towards Europe and China, where in certain fields researchers face fewer political constraints.

The danger of politicizing science

Scientific debate thrives on evidence-based challenge. What it cannot survive is the demand to bend findings to fit a pre-ordained political narrative.

SAGO has kept all hypotheses“on the table,” including the lab-leak scenario, but ranks them according to the strength of the available evidence.

Scientific neutrality is not an indulgence; it is the bedrock of effective global health policy. The“One Health” approach - integrating human, animal, and environmental health in pandemic prevention - depends on building an evidence-driven consensus across countries.

If major powers reject or undermine that process for domestic political gain, they fracture the very cooperation needed to prepare for the next outbreak.

The group's second mandate will test the WHO's credibility: will it ensure transparency in member selection, publish all funding sources, and keep its methodologies open to scrutiny?

And can it withstand pressure - whether from Washington, Beijing, or elsewhere - to skew its conclusions?

The global cost of instrumentalizing science

The fight over Covid-19's origins is part of a wider pattern: the blurring of boundaries between science and politics. From climate change to artificial intelligence to public health, research is too often judged for its political convenience rather than its empirical rigor.