Recent whistleblower claims suggest that a federal grant detailing how to engineer a virus similar to SARS-CoV-2—the virus behind COVID-19—may have been improperly classified, potentially complicating the U.S. government’s investigation into the pandemic’s origins.
Marine Corps Lt. Col. Joseph Murphy, a key whistleblower and head of the Warfighting Lab at Quantico, Virginia, discovered in July 2021 that this grant, titled “Project DEFUSE,” was uploaded to a classified portal, although it was intended to be unclassified.
The proposal, which originated from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), outlined research focused on enhancing bat-borne coronaviruses’ infectivity.
Notably, it has been viewed by some scientists as evidence suggesting COVID-19 may have originated in a lab. However, despite its relevance, Project DEFUSE was omitted from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s (ODNI) report on COVID-19’s origins published in August 2021.
Lt. Col. Murphy’s attempts to clarify why the document was classified were unsuccessful, leaving the proposal largely absent from the broader origins investigation.
Senator Roger Marshall from Kansas brought this issue to light, questioning whether certain documents, including Project DEFUSE, were intentionally overlooked or misinterpreted during the ODNI’s investigation.
Marshall raised concerns that “conflicted individuals may have censored intelligence related to a laboratory origin” of the virus and called for a comprehensive review of the government’s analysis process to ensure its accuracy and integrity. He emphasized the need to investigate whether bias or professional conflicts influenced the ODNI’s findings.
In May 2021, President Biden ordered ODNI to investigate COVID-19’s origins, leading the U.S. intelligence community to conclude that both lab leaks and natural origins were possible. While the FBI and the Department of Energy pointed to a lab leak as the more likely scenario, the official verdict remains inconclusive.
The DEFUSE proposal, submitted in 2018 by EcoHealth Alliance, aimed to modify bat coronaviruses in a lab setting, a process known as “gain-of-function” research, which DARPA ultimately decided not to fund due to the associated risks.
EcoHealth’s collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where gain-of-function research was conducted, has sparked further debate. Though EcoHealth denied violating National Institutes of Health (NIH) protocols, it was recently suspended from receiving federal grants over biosafety concerns and regulatory non-compliance.
The Wuhan Institute, a global leader in bat coronavirus research, is located in Wuhan, China, the same city where COVID-19 emerged in late 2019. Wuhan’s distance from natural bat habitats has led some experts, including former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield, to suggest that a lab leak is the most plausible origin of the virus.
Senator Marshall’s letter to Inspector General Thomas Monheim requests a deep-dive investigation into whether the DEFUSE proposal was accurately classified and if it was overlooked in the COVID-19 origins report.
His concerns align with statements from scientists like Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University, who advocate for accountability and transparency regarding COVID-19’s origins.
While key figures, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, former NIH director, have denied that COVID-19 originated in a lab, critics argue that ongoing U.S.-funded research at the WIV may have heightened the risk of a virus similar to SARS-CoV-2 developing in laboratory conditions.
For instance, between 2014 and 2019, experiments funded by the U.S. government combined bat coronaviruses with SARS and MERS, creating hybrid viruses that were more infectious. These findings raise concerns about the potential consequences of gain-of-function research and underscore the need for rigorous oversight.
As investigations continue, scientists, politicians, and the public remain focused on understanding COVID-19’s true origins. An inspector general review, as advocated by Dr. Ebright and others, may help clarify whether any oversights or biases influenced the intelligence community’s findings and shed light on how future pandemics might be prevented.
