It is worthwhile to recall this principle of parsimony, or what has become known as Ockham’s razor while dealing with the question that is suddenly on everyone’s minds: what is the origin of the COVID-19 virus? As soon as news of the virus became known to the world, a powerful group of virologists rushed to declare it was zoonotic – that is passed from animal to man or, in other words, naturally transmitted. Those who believed it could have been created in a lab were ridiculed as either conspiracy theorists or China-bashers.

Not any longer. Suddenly, there is an acknowledgement that, even if we cannot conclusively prove the origin of the virus, the so-called made-in-a-lab theory cannot be ruled out. In truth, the theory should never have been dismissed out of hand. Consider this. In a world as vast as this, the first infections occurred in China’s Wuhan, not far from the only laboratory in the world that was conducting experiments and making genetic modifications to the coronavirus. Yes, it is theoretically possible this was only a coincidence, even if a truly extraordinary one. But anyone who went by Ockham’s razor would have concluded that the lab theory is the simplest explanation – or at the very least, one that should not be summarily rejected.

A few weeks ago, noted science journalist Nicholas Wade wrote a long and influential piece saying as much. He advanced several reasons to back up his claim, including the fact that the nearest population of bats, which are believed to have transmitted the virus, is some 1500 km away. He also pointed out that the anatomy of the virus, particularly what is called the ‘furin cleavage site’, is unusual and is unlikely to have developed naturally or through mutation. This theory was further supported by David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize-winning virologist, also quoted in the article who is said to have spotted the sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 genome – something that is referred to as “smoking gun for the origin of the virus”. Wade paints a damning picture of a closed community of virologists – a cosy incestuous group that funds and supports each other – rushing to give the Wuhan lab a clean chit. Some of them, he charges, have a direct conflict of interest, having been intimately connected to the research being conducted at Wuhan to develop and perfect a coronavirus that infects humans.

The object of such research was probably to develop a really effective vaccine or counter to the coronavirus. As per records, the Wuhan experiment was a part of a programme that was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a part of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The role of Dr Antony Fauci, the Director of the NIAID for extending funding to the Wuhan lab, has come under greater focus.

All this does not conclusively establish that COVID-19 was lab-generated. But with China being less than transparent about coming clean with details, and with US President Joe Biden ordering a time-bound enquiry into the origins of COVID-19, there is a greater willingness to be open about how it came to be. A good scientific approach requires an open mind rather than one that forecloses possibilities. We may never be able to conclusively determine its origins, but at least the world is now willing to ask the right questions. And the truth, if it emerges, will lead us to a better place in this war against the virus.