The World Health Organization’s Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) has just opened applications for its second term.
Barely six weeks earlier, it had delivered what was meant to be a decisive conclusion: the weight of available evidence indicates the virus behind the Covid-19 pandemic most likely emerged through natural spillover from bats, either directly or via an intermediate host.
That conclusion, grounded in peer-reviewed studies, epidemiological fieldwork and an exhaustive review of available data, should have been the point where political heat gave way to scientific consensus.
Instead, it has done precisely the opposite in certain political circles, particularly in Washington, where parts of the US political establishment have doubled down on the “lab-leak” hypothesis, turning a question of virology into a political weapon.
This is not merely an academic quarrel over probabilities. It is the latest front in a campaign to re-politicize a scientific process that SAGO, in its very design, sought to shield from partisan agendas.
And it matters not just for our understanding of Covid-19 but for the credibility of global health governance.
A mandate to depoliticize research
Formed in 2021, SAGO was designed to provide a global framework for investigating the origins of pathogens — starting with Covid-19 — in a climate of intense diplomatic tension.
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.
When ideological interference becomes routine, two losses occur. The first is scientific: research becomes distorted, delayed, or discredited. The second is political: leaders find themselves making policy based on selectively filtered “facts,” increasing the risk of catastrophic misjudgements.
The United States, once the undisputed leader in biomedical research, is now in danger of suffering both losses simultaneously. Tedros’s warning bears repeating: politicizing pathogen-origin research is not a harmless rhetorical game. It is an obstacle to truth, and, in public health, ignorance is dangerous.
If SAGO can operate free from political interference, it may yet deliver the knowledge the world needs to prevent the next pandemic. If not, we risk remaining trapped in a cycle where science serves politics rather than humanity.
In global health, truth is not partisan. It is evidence-based. And it deserves to be defended with the same resolve as our borders.
Ricardo Martins holds a PhD in sociology with a specialization in geopolitics and international relations and an advanced studies certificate in international trade. He is based in the Netherlands.
