2026-08-06T07:06:00-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
参议院一个小组委员会周四就是否建议裁定安东尼·福奇博士藐视国会进行投票，这一事件背后是这位美国联邦政府前首席传染病专家与肯塔基州共和党参议员兰德·保罗五年多来的紧张关系，其中大部分分歧围绕新冠病毒起源以及一项有争议的生物研究分支展开。
在参议院听证会上，保罗多次指责福奇淡化了新冠病毒起源于中国武汉某实验室而非自然从动物传播给人类的理论。这位参议员还声称，旨在改造病毒的高风险“功能获得性”实验曾在该实验室开展，且得到了福奇领导的美国国家过敏和传染病研究所的资助，同时指责福奇对此撒谎。
福奇强烈否认了这位参议员的指控，称自己始终对病毒起源持开放态度。他还指责保罗歪曲了武汉当地获得联邦资助的研究类型，并强调当时在当地研究的病毒与引发新冠大流行的病毒相去甚远。
随后，在上周出席参议院国土安全委员会听证会时，福奇对所有问题均援引第五修正案拒绝回答，理由是保罗对自己“精神错乱般的痴迷”，以及试图将他“送进监狱”。保罗此前曾推动裁定福奇藐视国会，辩称福奇不应援引第五修正案，因为拜登政府时期的赦免已让他免受起诉。是否对福奇提起公诉将由美国司法部决定。
以下是这场争议的相关背景信息：
什么是“实验室泄漏”理论？
引发新冠大流行的病毒的确切起源尚未最终确定，这一问题在医学专家和情报官员中引发了数年的争论。
许多科学家认为，现有证据表明病毒自然起源于蝙蝠，通过中间宿主传播给人类，最早的人类感染病例于2019年底出现在武汉的一个活体动物市场。另一些人则认为，病毒是从附近的武汉病毒研究所意外泄漏的，该研究所当时正在研究蝙蝠病毒。这家实验室获得了美国联邦政府拨付给一家非营利研究机构的近60万美元资金，开展了相关研究。
去年，由世界卫生组织组建的专家小组未能就新冠病毒的出现方式得出明确结论，该小组称“现有证据的权重”表明病毒起源于自然，但无法排除实验室泄漏的可能性。
美国情报界在2023年也持类似的混合观点。美国国家情报委员会和其他四个机构认为，病毒很可能是通过自然接触动物感染人类，而联邦调查局和能源部则认为病毒很可能是实验室事故导致的。中央情报局当时未得出结论，不过该机构在去年倾向于实验室泄漏理论。
这场争论的部分焦点在于“功能获得性”研究，该研究的宽泛定义是改造或增强病毒以研究其可能的进化方式，相关指控称武汉当地的部分研究属于此类。这种研究方法颇具争议，反对者警告其可能存在风险，支持者则认为这有助于防范未来的大流行病。
福奇就实验室泄漏理论发表过哪些言论？
近年来，福奇公开表示，他对新冠病毒可能来自实验室泄漏的观点持开放态度，但他认为大多数证据支持自然起源的说法。
“我们对病毒起源完全保持开放的心态，”福奇在2022年底接受哥伦比亚广播公司新闻《与玛格丽特·布伦南面对面》节目采访时表示，“话虽如此，如果你看看那些不带政治议程的高素质国际科学家所做的分析，他们在同行评审期刊——包括最顶尖的同行评审期刊——上发表的研究显示，所有累积的证据……都强烈表明这是一次自然事件。”
福奇指出了“与中国方面将本不应出现在武汉市场的野生动物引入该市场有关的证据，这些动物显然有可能将病毒从蝙蝠传播给它们，再传播给人类”。但他补充道，“我们必须调查所有可能性，因为这件事太重要了，不能不这么做”，并表示中国政府没有共享足够的信息。
疫情早期，在采访和新闻发布会上，福奇曾称证据“非常、非常强烈地”指向自然起源。在2020年4月的一次白宫新闻发布会上，福奇告诉记者，一项新发布的研究显示“病毒演化到当前状态所经历的突变……完全符合病毒从动物跳跃到人类的物种间传播”。
保罗和其他国会共和党议员指责福奇淡化实验室泄漏的可能性，并暗示他在疫情早期引导公众舆论倾向于自然起源说，尽管当时专家私下认为实验室泄漏是有可能的。福奇对此予以否认，称自己始终保持开放心态。
2023年，众议院共和党议员指责福奇在幕后对2020年那项指向自然起源的研究施加了“不当影响”。众议院民主党议员在一份反驳报告中辩称，福奇并未参与该论文的起草，也没有试图压制其他理论。
福奇在上个月保罗公布的日记中提及了病毒起源的不确定性。2020年1月，他写道“我们知道该市场并非病毒源头，只是病毒的放大器”，但补充道“病毒是从动物跳跃到人类的，只是发生在某个地方”。
福奇就功能获得性研究以及该研究是否与新冠疫情有关发表过哪些言论？
福奇长期以来一直辩称，武汉病毒研究所获得联邦资助的研究，按照美国政府的定义，并不构成危险的功能获得性研究。此外，他强调，当时在当地研究的病毒不可能引发这场大流行。
“美国国立卫生研究院从未，现在也不会资助武汉病毒研究所的功能获得性研究，”福奇在2021年5月的一场参议院听证会上接受保罗质询时说道。
两个月后的另一场听证会上，福奇告诉保罗，武汉当地的研究“从上到下都被判定不属于功能获得性研究”。
保罗指责福奇在这些听证会上撒谎，辩称相关实验确实属于功能获得性研究——双方由此爆发激烈交锋，福奇指责这位参议员撒谎，并表示“你根本不知道自己在说什么”。
这场分歧部分取决于对高风险功能获得性研究的定义，正如哥伦比亚广播公司医疗记者塞琳·贡德里博士所解释的那样。福奇在2021年的一场听证会上告诉保罗，这个术语“非常模糊”。
2017年，联邦官员解除了对某些功能获得性研究为期三年的资助禁令，代之以对涉及“增强型大流行潜能病原体”（EPPP）的研究进行额外审查。EPPP的定义是：在人类中具有高度传播性和致病性，且经过改造后传播性或致病性增强的病原体。福奇在参议院证词中提到的高风险研究正是采用了这一定义。
武汉获得联邦资助开展的研究涉及改造蝙蝠病毒，以研究其对人类的潜在影响。美国国立卫生研究院2021年表示，这些研究不符合需要额外联邦审查的EPPP研究定义，因为它们针对的是尚未感染人类的蝙蝠冠状病毒。
保罗指责福奇“玩弄文字游戏”，辩称相关研究符合功能获得性研究的定义，因为被研究的病毒经过了改造。（美国国立卫生研究院表示，接受病毒测试的小鼠病情加重，但称这是“意外结果”。）
另一个争议点是：无论如何分类，武汉开展的研究是否可能与引发新冠大流行的新冠病毒有关。
福奇长期以来称这种说法“在分子层面不可能”，并指出根据联邦资助项目在武汉研究的病毒与引发新冠的病毒差异巨大。
“如果你要改造病毒使其成为危险病毒，你必须从一种足够接近最终改造出的病毒的前体病毒开始，这样在分子层面才有可能实现，”他在2024年接受哥伦比亚广播公司新闻首席医疗记者乔恩·拉普克采访时表示，“可以完全肯定的是，根据美国国立卫生研究院资助的项目开展实验所研究的病毒，在分子层面与新冠病毒相去甚远，即便他们尝试（将其改造为新冠病毒）也不可能做到，而他们显然没有这么做。”
福奇继续说道：“从进化角度来看，差异太大了，需要20年的演化才能达到那个程度。”
保罗暗示，武汉开展的其他实验可能使用了相同的研究方法，他认为这些方法“存在风险”，需要严格审查。
“没人声称那些病毒引发了这场大流行，”2021年他对福奇说，“我们所指控的是，该实验室一直在开展功能获得性研究，而美国国立卫生研究院为其提供了资助。”
最近几周，保罗援引了福奇的日记内容，其中福奇谈及了新冠疫情早期围绕病毒是否起源于实验室的争论。
2020年2月1日，福奇描述了与十几位顶尖传染病专家就病毒特征进行的通话，其中包括对所谓的弗林蛋白酶切割位点的讨论。他表示，通话中有两位专家“确信这种情况可能自然发生”，但“其他人则认为，病毒可能是经过刻意插入突变产生的”，并且“我们不能对此置之不理”。
一天前，福奇提到了“病毒通过插入突变获得功能，被刻意或意外释放到武汉的阴谋论”。福奇写道，他提议召集一群进化生物学家“仔细研究这个问题”。
塞琳·贡德里博士和乔恩·拉普克为本报道撰稿。
What Fauci has said about COVID origins and gain-of-function research in his spat with Rand Paul
2026-08-06T07:06:00-0400 / CBS News
Thursday’s vote by a Senate panel on whether to recommend holding Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress builds on more than five years of tension between the federal government’s former top infectious disease expert and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — much of it hinging on the origins of the coronavirus and a controversial branch of biological research.
In Senate hearings, Paul has repeatedly accused Fauci of downplaying the theory that the virus emerged from a lab in the Chinese city of Wuhan rather than jumping from animals to humans naturally. The senator has also argued risky “gain-of-function” experiments that aim to modify viruses took place at that lab with support from Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and has accused Fauci of lying about it.
Fauci has strongly denied the senator’s allegations, saying he has always kept an open mind about the virus’ origins. He has also accused Paul of misrepresenting the types of federally supported research that took place in Wuhan, and has emphasized that the viruses studied there were far removed from the one that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
Then, in an appearance before the Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to every question, citing Paul’s “unhinged obsession with me” and desire to put him “behind bars.” Paul has sought to hold Fauci in contempt, arguing he can’t take the Fifth because he is already insulated from prosecution by a Biden-era pardon. Whether to charge Fauci would be up to the Justice Department.
Here’s what to know about the controversy:
What is the “lab leak” theory?
The precise origins of the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic have not been definitively nailed down — drawing years of debate among medical experts and intelligence officials.
Many scientists believe the evidence suggests that the virus emerged naturally in bats, circulated to other species and spilled over to humans, spreading at a live animal market in Wuhan where the first human cases appeared in late 2019. Others believe the virus accidentally leaked from the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was researching bat viruses. That lab conducted some research that was funded by nearly $600,000 in U.S. government money due to a federal grant issued to a nonprofit research group.
Last year, a panel of experts assembled by the World Health Organization was unable to reach a firm conclusion on how the coronavirus emerged, writing that the “weight of available evidence” suggested a natural origin but they couldn’t rule out a lab leak.
The U.S. intelligence community offered a similarly mixed view in 2023. The National Intelligence Council and four other agencies found the virus likely infected humans through natural exposure to an animal, while the FBI and Department of Energy believed it was likely a lab incident. The CIA didn’t reach a conclusion at the time, though it favored a lab leak last year.
Some of the debate revolves around “gain-of-function” research, a practice broadly defined as modifying or enhancing viruses to study how they might evolve — and allegations that some of the research in Wuhan fell into that category. The method can be controversial, with opponents warning it could be risky and proponents arguing it could help stop future pandemics.
What has Fauci said about the lab leak theory?
Fauci has said publicly in recent years he is open to the idea that the virus that caused COVID-19 could have leaked from a lab, but he believes most of the evidence supports a natural origin.
“We keep a completely open mind as to what the origin is,” Fauci told CBS News’ “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” in late 2022. “Having said that, if you look at the examination by highly qualified international scientists with no political agendas, they’ve published in peer reviewed journals, the best of the peer reviewed journals, that all the accumulated evidence … is quite strong that this is a natural occurrence.”
Fauci pointed to evidence “related to the Chinese bringing into the Wuhan market animals from the wild that should not have been there, that clearly could have brought [the virus] from a bat to them to a human.” But he added that “we’ve got to investigate every possibility because this is too important not to do that,” and said the Chinese regime hadn’t shared enough information.
Dr. Anthony Fauci at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on July 29, 2026. Al Drago / Bloomberg via Getty Images
Early on in the pandemic, in interviews and news conferences, Fauci argued that the evidence pointed “very, very strongly” toward a natural origin. In one April 2020 White House news conference, Fauci told reporters a newly released study showed “the mutations that it took to get to the point where [the virus] is now [are] totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
Paul and other congressional Republicans have accused Fauci of downplaying the possibility of a lab leak — and have suggested he helped steer the public debate toward a natural origin in the pandemic’s early days even as experts privately thought a lab leak was possible. Fauci has denied that, saying he always kept an open mind.
House Republicans in 2023 accused Fauci of exerting “undue influence” behind the scenes over the 2020 study that pointed toward a natural origin. In a dueling report, House Democrats argued Fauci didn’t play a role in drafting the paper and wasn’t trying to silence other theories.
Fauci mentioned the uncertainty about the virus’ origins in diary entries that Paul released last month. In January 2020, he wrote that “we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier,” though he added that “somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans.”
What has Fauci said about gain-of-function research — and whether it’s linked to COVID-19?
Fauci has long argued the federally backed studies that took place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology did not constitute dangerous gain-of-function research under the government’s definition. Moreover, he has stressed, the viruses that were studied could not have caused the pandemic.
“The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Fauci said in one May 2021 Senate hearing, during questioning from Paul.
In another hearing two months later, Fauci told Paul the research in Wuhan was “judged up and down the chain as not being gain-of-function.”
Paul accused Fauci of lying in those hearings, arguing the experiments did constitute gain-of-function research — producing fiery back-and-forths in which Fauci accused the senator of lying and said “you do not know what you are talking about.”
The disagreement hinges in part on the definition of risky gain-of-function research, as CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Céline Gounder has explained. Fauci told Paul in one 2021 hearing the term is “very nebulous.”
In 2017, federal officials lifted a three-year pause on funding certain gain-of-function research and replaced it with extra scrutiny for studies involving “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens,” or EPPP — defined as pathogens that are highly transmissible and virulent in humans and that have been enhanced to make them more transmissible or virulent. That’s the definition of risky research that Fauci pointed to in Senate testimony.
The research that was conducted in Wuhan with federal support involved modifications to bat viruses to study their potential impact on humans. The National Institutes of Health said in 2021 that these studies did not fit the definition of EPPP research that needed an extra layer of federal review since they focused on bat coronaviruses that hadn’t infected humans.
Paul has accused Fauci of “parsing words,” arguing the research does meet the definition since the viruses that were studied were enhanced. (The NIH has said the mice that the viruses were tested on became sicker, but called it an “unexpected result.”)
Another area of dispute: Whether the research conducted in Wuhan — however it’s classified — could be linked to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fauci has long called that idea “molecularly impossible,” noting that the viruses that were studied in Wuhan under federal grants were very different than the one that caused COVID.
“When you have a virus, if you’re going to manipulate it in a way to make it a dangerous virus, you have to start off with a precursor virus that’s close enough to the virus that you ultimately make that it is molecularly possible to do that,” he told CBS News chief medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook in a 2024 interview. “What is absolutely 100% certain is that the viruses that were studied under the NIH grant for the kinds of experiments that were done, molecularly, were so far removed from SARS-CoV-2 that they could not have turned it into SARS-CoV-2 even if they tried, which they obviously didn’t do.”
Fauci continued: “Evolutionarily, it’s so far, it would take 20 years of evolution to get it there.”
Paul has suggested other experiments in Wuhan may have used the same research methods, which he argues are “risky” and need intense scrutiny.
“No one is alleging that those viruses caused the pandemic,” he told Fauci in 2021. “What we’re alleging is that gain-of-function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it.”
In recent weeks, Paul has pointed to diary entries in which Fauci discusses the debate early on during the COVID-19 pandemic over whether the virus emerged from a lab.
On Feb. 1, 2020, Fauci describes a call with a dozen top infectious disease experts about features of the virus, including discussion of what’s known as the furin cleavage site. He said two people on the call were “sure that this could occur naturally,” but “the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible” and “we could not let this go.”
A day earlier, Fauci referred to “conspiracy theories that the virus was given [gain of function] by inserted mutations and deliberately or accidentally released in Wuhan.” Fauci wrote that he suggested convening a group of evolutionary biologists to “carefully look at this.”
Dr. Céline Gounder and Jon LaPook contributed to this report.
发表回复