You began your career at the California Institute of Technology studying RNA viruses, such as the mosquito-borne Sindbis virus, and then flaviviruses that cause encephalitis, polyarthritis, yellow fever, and dengue fever. Later on, you also studied hepatitis C virus. Is there any advantage for virologists in changing the viruses they study throughout their careers?
They’re all interesting, right? And they are all different in their own ways. I say that my career has been a downward spiral of tackling increasingly intricate viruses. Initially, the alphaviruses – a viral family that includes chikungunya virus, for example – were easy. The classical flaviviruses – like yellow fever, dengue fever, West Nile viruses, and Zika virus, among others – were a little more difficult, but the hepatitis C virus was impossible for 15 years, until we, and others, finally achieved a complete replication system in the laboratory.
We coexist daily with viruses, but the pandemic may have given people the idea that all these microorganisms are invariably life-threatening.
We have to treat them with respect. We’ve seen what can happen with the emergence of a novel coronavirus that can spread during an asymptomatic phase of infection. You can’t be prepared for everything, but in some respects our response was a lot slower and less effective than it could have been.
If there’s anything that we’ve learned over the last 10 years with the new nucleic acid sequencing technologies, it’s that our past view of the virosphere was very narrow. And if you really look at what’s out there, the estimated virus diversity is a staggering number, like 1,031 types. Although most of them are not pathogenic to humans, some are. We have to take this threat seriously.
Is science prepared?
I think so, but there has to be an investment, a societal investment. And that investment has to not only be an investment in infrastructure that can react quickly to something new, but also to establish a repository of protective antibodies and small molecules against viruses that we know could be future threats.
Often, these things go in cycles. There’s a disaster, like the COVID-19 pandemic, people are changed by the experience, but then they think “Oh, well, the virus has faded into the background, the threat is over.” And that’s just not the case. We need a more sustained plan rather than a reactive stance. And that’s hard to do when resources and money are limited.
What is the effect of science illiteracy, conspiracy theories, and lack of science information on the battle against viruses?
These are huge issues, and I don’t know the best way to combat them and educate people. Any combative, confrontational kind of response – it’s just not going to work. People will get more resolute in their entrenched beliefs and not hear or believe compelling evidence to the contrary.
It’s frustrating. I think that we have amazing tools and the power to make really significant advances to help people. It is more than a little discouraging for scientists when there’s a substantial fraction of people who don’t believe in things that are well-supported by facts.
It’s in large part an educational problem. I think we don’t put enough money into education, particularly early education. A lot of people don’t understand how much of what we take for granted today is underpinned by science. All this technology – good, bad or ugly – is all science.
This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine on Oct. 30, 2023. Knowable Magazine is an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews, a nonprofit publisher dedicated to synthesizing and integrating knowledge for the progress of science and the benefit of society. Sign up for Knowable Magazine’s newsletter.