research proposal review uow

Ask Us: Learning Co-op

What is a research proposal.

A research proposal is a written outline of your proposed research project . It:    

• D efines a clear question that you intend to answer  
• H ighlights your work’s significance  
• E xplains how it adds to existing literature  
• Persuades potential supervisors or funders why your research is needed.    

Visit our Research Proposals resource for more information on research proposals, what the purpose of a research proposal is, how to plan a research proposal, and what a basic structure of a research proposal looks like.  

• Assessments
• Last Updated Feb 12, 2024
• Answered By PAC Co-Op

FAQ Actions

• Share on Facebook

Comments (0)

• Bulletin Board
• Policy Resources
• Current Version
• Status and Details
• Associated Information
• Historic Versions
• Future Versions

Research Proposal Review Guidelines

Section 1 - purpose, section 2 - scope, section 3 - timeframe, section 4 - composition of committee, section 5 - rpr presentation, research presentation, research plan, preliminary literature review, statement of the resources required to complete the project, committee questions, section 6 - rpr outcome, section 7 - unsatisfactory rprs, section 8 - rpr representations, section 9 - outcome of representation, section 10 - probation, section 11 - discontinuation, section 12 - university hdr award rules, section 13 - definitions.

(1) The purpose of these Guidelines it to outline the process involved in the preparation, presentation and assessment of the Research Proposal Review (RPR). The RPR is an important step in ensuring that the research project is based on a strong academic footing, that the student has the skills required to complete the project at the required standard, that the supervisory arrangements are appropriate to the project, and that the project can be undertaken adequately with the resources available.

(2) These guidelines apply to all HDR students, their supervisors and academic units.

(3) As part of their responsibilities to Higher Degree Research (HDR) students outlined in the HDR Supervision and Resources Procedures , academic units are expected to conduct the RPR, which is a formal review of the candidate's research proposal. 

(4) The RPR should be completed early in the candidature, as follows:

• between 1.0 and 1.5 EFTSL (1 – 1.5 year full-time enrolment or equivalent) of the thes is component of the degree for doctoral students.
• between .5 and 1 EFTSL of the  thesis component of the degree for Master of Philosophy students.

(5) The EFTSL associated with coursework in the MPhil, PhD (Integrated) and professional doctorates should not be counted when calculating when the RPR should take place.

(6) Students of the Master of Research do not need to complete a RPR.

(7) The RPR involves a Research Presentation which must be made before a Research Proposal Review Committee (RPRC). Faculty guidelines define the composition of the RPR Committee for each faculty; but each committee must have the following members as a minimum:

• three (3) staff members: the student’s supervisors, and one or two appropriate members of academic staff capable of assessing the research proposal,
• a postgraduate research student representative as an observer.
• where appropriate, given the research project, a person external to the academic or research unit may be nominated to the committee.
• the RPR should not be restricted to members of the RPR Committee and faculties may advertise that members of the relevant school are welcome to attend

(8) The RPR should cover the following areas:

(9) The candidate must deliver a presentation that outlines the research question, aims, significance, approach and originality of the project.

(10) The scope of the research should be appropriate for the degree.

(11) The presentation allows the Research Proposal Review Committee to assess the candidate’s capacity: to clearly articulate their research question; to explain the significance of the research; to explain how they will do the research; and to respond to questions about their research.

(12) This should provide more detailed information and include information about the project’s background, how it will be approached (e.g. hypothesis, experimental design, methods, theoretical approach, etc as applicable), outline of the thesis chapters and draft timelines for completion of the project.

(13) In addition, it should identify any ethical, conflict of interest, IP and safety issues relevant to the project and how these will be addressed, and any potential problems likely to impede progress and suggest solutions to these problems.

(14) The literature review should demonstrate that the candidate has a good knowledge of the field of the research project including the published findings of other researchers and the areas requiring original research.

(15) This statement should identify any materials, training, travel or access to infrastructure required to complete the project. In particular students should identify any changes in resource or infrastructure needs beyond those identified in the “Commencement of Candidature” agreement completed at the first formal meeting between the student and their supervisors.

(16) Students should also identify any training, expert assistance or specialist library resources required for completion of the project.

(17) The Committee will have the opportunity to ask further questions of the student and their supervisor concerning the appropriateness of the research project for the degree, standard of the research plan, adequacy of resources available for the project and appropriateness of existing supervisory arrangements for completion of the project. These considerations will contribute to the committee’s recommendations.

(18) The student will have the opportunity to address the committee directly.

(19) The Committee will make a decision on the outcome of the RPR.

(20) The completed RPR report must be signed off by the HPS and lodged with the Graduate Research School. A copy should be kept in the relevant faculty.

(21) The student will normally be notified of that decision by the faculty within 10 working days of the RPR and provided with a copy of the signed report.

(22) If the outcome is satisfactory, no further action is necessary.

(23) If the outcome is unsatisfactory, the student will be required to undertake a further RPR in accordance with Sections 8 – 10.

(24) If it is determined at the first presentation that the RPR is unsatisfactory the HDR student should represent the RPR within three months of the first presentation.

(25) The Head of Postgraduate Studies should provide the student a copy of the RPR report with the advice that the student will need to represent.

(26) The student should be given adequate direction and support by the supervisory team to improve the presentation before the second RPR takes place.

(27) The composition of the second RPR should, as far as possible, be the same as the first to allow the panel to make appropriate judgements on any progress and improvement.

(28) The proceedings of the second RPR should be the same as the first, outlined under Section 5 of these Guidelines.

(29) At the conclusion of second RPR, the panel will make one of the following recommendations:

• allocate a Satisfactory outcome for the RPR, or
• downgrade the student’s enrolment to Master of Philosophy,
• put the student on official probation (see section 11 of these guidelines) for a designated period,
• change the supervisor,
• refer the student to RESH900/901 Fundamentals for HDR Writing, or
• recommend to the Dean of Graduate Research that the student be discontinued (see section 10 of these Guidelines).

(30) The completed RPR report must be signed off by the HPS and lodged with the Graduate Research School. A copy should be kept in the relevant faculty.

(31) If the 2nd RPR is unsatisfactory the Research Proposal Review Committee should make a recommendation to the Associate Dean Research on the student's continued candidature.

(32) The Associate Dean Research will refer this request, with their comments, to the Dean of Graduate Research who will make a final decision.

(33) If the student is placed on probation, a probationary supervisor must be appointed by the Head of Postgraduate Studies.

(34) A meeting will be held with the student, the probationary supervisor and current supervisors, to define the milestones and timeframes to be completed.

(35) A written copy of these milestones will be provided to the supervisors, students and GRS.

(36) These students need to be managed as per the probation process and not be required to represent their RPR for a third time while on probation. 

(37) Students who successfully complete the probation process must present their RPR within .5 EFTSL, or one session of completing probation.

(38) In the case of a student who does not complete probation successfully, the faculty Associate Dean Research will make a decision on the student’s continued candidature which will be referred to the Dean of Graduate Research for a final decision.

(39) In the case of a recommendation for discontinuation, the RPR panel should make a recommendation to the Associate Dean Research of the faculty.

(40) If the Associate Dean Research supports the recommendation, s/he will refer the RPR report and discontinuation recommendation to the Dean of Graduate Research.

(41) The Dean of Graduate Research will review the report and any other associated information.

(42) If the Dean of Graduate Research supports the recommendation for discontinuation, he will write to the student to inform them of their discontinuation.

(43) The student will be given a 20 day period to appeal their discontinuation, as per the HDR Student Academic Complaints Policy .

(44) All HDR candidates must adhere to the University Higher Degree Research (HDR) Award Rules at all times.

• Student Member
• Corporate Partnership
• Accreditation
• OR Society Accreditation »
• Become Chartered »
• Data Science Professional Certification »
• Continuing Professional Development CPD »
• Awards, Medals and Scholarships
• Beale Medal »
• President's Medal »
• Goodeve Medal »
• Stafford Beer Medal »
• Cook Medal »
• KD Tocher Medal »
• Griffiths Medal »
• Ranyard Medal »
• Lyn Thomas Impact Medal »
• Companion of OR »
• The Simpson Award »
• May Hicks Award »
• The OR Society Undergraduate Award »
• The Doctoral Award »
• Scholarships IFORS »
• Donald Hicks Scholarships »
• EURO Summer Institute Scholarships »
• Elsie Cropper Award »
• Assisted Places »
• Silver Medal »
• Master's Scholarship »
• University Master's Courses in OR »
• Master's Scholarships Recent Winners »
• Annual Conference
• OR66 Streams »
• OR66 Organising Committee »
• OR66 Sponsors »
• OR66 Plenary Speakers »
• Previous Annual Conferences
• OR64 »
• OR63 »
• OR62 »
• OR61 »
• OR65 »
• OR65 Plenary Speakers »
• OR65 Streams »
• OR65 Key Dates »
• OR65 Rates and Booking »
• OR65 Useful Information »
• ECR Workshop »
• OR65 Organising Committee »
• Annual General Meeting
• 2018 Beale Lecture Richard Omerod »
• 2018 Beale Lecture Dr Çagri Koç »
• 2019 Beale Lecture Mike Jackson »
• Beale Lecture 2020 Speakers »
• 2021 Beale Lecture »
• Beale 2023 »
• Blackett Lecture
• Previous Blackett Lectures »
• Blackett 2022: Professor Christina Pagel »
• Careers Open Day
• COD 2024 Exhibitors »
• COD 2022 Exhibitors »
• ISMOR 40 Proceedings »
• ISMOR 39 Proceedings »
• Ismor Sponsors »
• Knowledge Exchange Day
• New to OR Conference
• Speakers »
• Simulation Workshop
• SW25 Organising Committee »
• SW25 Sponsors and Exhibitors »
• SW25 Call for Papers »
• SW25 Key Dates »
• SW21 »
• SW21 Registration and Rates »
• SW21 Programme »
• Keynote Speakers »
• SW21 Key Dates »
• SW21 Sponsor and Exhibitors »
• SW21 Organising Committee »
• SW21 Programme Committee »
• SW21 Advisory Board »
• SW21 DSE Consulting Headline Sponsor »
• SW23 Keynote Speakers »
• SW23 Organising Committee »
• Scenario Planning and Foresight
• Validate AI Conference
• Regional Society & SIG Events
• Non-Society Events
• WORAN Land Lecture
• Previous WORAN Land Lectures »
• September Webinar »
• November Webinar »
• October Webinar »
• 15 November Webinar »
• December Webinar »
• January 24 Webinar »
• WISDOM Webinar »
• February 24 webinar »
• March 2024 »
• April 24 »
• May 24 »
• May_2_2024 »
• July 2024 »
• Joint SIG Event
• Joint SIG Speakers 2024 »
• JORS Gender Equality Webinar
• Publications
• JORS »
• Call for Co-Editor-in-Chief »
• EJIS »
• KMRP »
• JOS »
• JOS Africa Focus Initiative »
• JBA »
• OR Insight »
• Inside OR »
• Impact Magazine »
• Databases & Literature Searches
• Additional Journals
• Technology Analysis & Strategic Management »
• Engineering Optimization »
• Journal of Decision Systems »
• Journal of Management Analytics »
• International Journal of Modelling and Simulation »
• International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management »
• International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics »
• International Journal of Healthcare Management »
• Tutors »
• Your Learning Portal
• Inhouse Private Courses
• Training for PhD Students – NATCOR
• Submit Training Bids
• Researchers Database
• EPSRC Peer College Review
• Why Kerem Akartunali joined the EPSRC Peer Review College »
• Why Alain Zemkoho is joining the EPSRC Peer Review College »
• Why Kathy Kotiadis joined the EPSRC Peer Review College »
• Open Funding Opportunities
• Top Tips: Applying for Funding
• Potential Funding Sources for Research

Top Tips: Reviewing a Research Proposal

• Get Involved
• General Council Elections
• GC Thank You »
• Job Opportunities in OR
• Volunteering Opportunities
• OR in Education
• University Masters Courses in OR »
• Careers »
• For Volunteers »
• For Lecturers »
• For Teachers »
• OR in Education Resources »
• Webinars »
• Pro Bono OR
• Pro Bono OR Volunteering »
• Open Pro Bono Projects »
• Pro Bono OR for the Third Sector »
• Case Studies »
• Society Groups
• Regional Societies »
• East Midlands »
• London & South East »
• Midlands »
• North East »
• North West »
• Scotland »
• South Wales »
• Southern »
• Western »
• Yorkshire & Humberside »
• Special Interest Groups and Networks »
• Analytics Network »
• Behavioural OR »
• Decision Analysis »
• Defence »
• Early Career Researchers (ECR) »
• Health & Social Services »
• Independent Consultants Network »
• New to OR Network »
• OR, Analytics, and Education »
• OR and Strategy »
• OR in Practice »
• OR in the Third Sector »
• People Analytics »
• Problem Structuring Methods »
• Public Policy Design »
• Simulation OR »
• Systems Thinking »
• Women in OR & Analytics Network »
• Related Organisations
• Submit a paper to a journal
• Become a reviewer
• Legacy Giving
• History of OR
• OR in Business
• Agent Based Modelling »
• Bayesian Analysis »
• Data Analytics and Big Data »
• Data Envelopment Analysis »
• Data Provenance »
• Data Warehousing »
• Forecasting »
• Fuzzy Systems »
• Game Theory »
• Grey Models »
• Heuristics »
• Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence (AI) »
• Mathematical Modelling »
• Multicriteria Analysis »
• Neural Networks »
• Optimisation »
• Queueing »
• Simulation »
• Supply Chain Optimisation »
• System Dynamics »
• Vehicle Routing Problem »
• OR Insights
• February's OR Insights »
• Bringing AI into the classroom »
• INFORMS Finalists »
• New White Paper on optimising patient records in the NHS »
• April 2024 OR Insights »
• Navigating stress and burnout in Operational Research »
• Knowledge Exchange »
• EURO launches new online seminar series »
• OR in real world situations
• Cybersecurity Operations »
• Environmental and Sustainable Operations »
• Healthcare Operations Management »
• Humanitarian Operations »
• Risk Management and Resilience »
• Service and Customer Experience »
• Smart Cites and Planning »
• History of The OR Society
• 75th Anniversary

The peer review process is invaluable in assisting research panels to make decisions about funding. Independent experts scrutinise the importance, potential and cost-effectiveness of the research being proposed.

Check the funder’s website for guidance Ensure you are clear on what type of proposal you are being asked to review and read the assessment criteria and scoring matrix as a priority. Many funding councils have prepared comprehensive guidance for reviewers that is freely available online. As an example, EPSRC and ESRC guidance can be accessed here:

EPSRC:  https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/funding/assessmentprocess/review/formsandguidancenotes/standardcalls/

ESRC:  http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-peer-reviewers/

Be objective and professional Provide clear and concise comments and objective criticism when identifying strengths and weaknesses in the proposal. Whether or not there are major flaws or ethical concerns, provide justification and references for your comments and the score you provide. Remain anonymous by avoiding referring to your own work or any personal information. Don’t allow your review to be influenced by bias for your own field of research and be mindful of unconscious bias and the impact this could have on your review. See:  https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html.

Be concise but clear Many submission systems have character limits for the review sections, so you will need to be concise. However, you should be conscious that not everyone reading your review comments will be a specialist in your field so use accessible language throughout.

Remember to praise a good proposal If you find that the proposal you’re reviewing is good, you should say so and explain why.

Take your time Finally, allow enough time to thoroughly read the proposal before writing and submitting your review. If you feel you need more time to complete your review, then contact the funder to request a deadline extension. Most funders would prefer that you request an extension, and provide a more comprehensive review, than submit something brief and uninformative because there was inadequate time for you to consider it in detail.

Andrew (2014, May 19). Review a research grant-application in five minutes. Retrieved from:  https://parkerderrington.com/peer-review-your-own-grant-application-in-five-minutes/

Medical Research Council (2017) Guidance for peer reviewers. Retrieved from: https://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/reviewers-handbook/

Prosser, R. (2016, September 19). 8 top tips for writing a useful grant review. Insight . Retrieved from:  https://mrc.ukri.org/news/blog/8-top-tips-for-writing-a-useful-review/?redirected-from-wordpress

We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you personalised advertising. To find out more, read our privacy policy and cookie policy

• Academic skills and study support
• Online study skills resources
• Assessments

Project proposal

This resource explains the purpose and structure of a project proposal.

What is a project proposal?

A project proposal is a 2-5 page document that seeks to address key questions surrounding a major project. A project proposal concisely describes what your project hopes to accomplish, why those objectives are important, and how you intend to achieve them. In more general terms, it makes a case for what you plan to do.

During your studies, you may be asked to complete a project proposal as a first step towards completing a major project, for example a capstone project. A project proposal at university is used to assess the quality and originality of your ideas, your understanding of the purpose of your project, and the ultimate feasibility of the project.

How is a project proposal different to a research proposal?

A research proposal typically describes a question or hypothesis you have chosen to explore, whereas a project proposal will typically describe something you intend to produce – this might be a policy report, a web site, a film, a book, a computer game or an event – there are many possibilities. Both types of proposal involve research.

How do I structure a project proposal?

The structure of your project proposal will vary depending on the nature of the work you plan to undertake, and with the discipline in which your project is situated. The subject outline will specify any particular requirements. It may ask that you include basic information and any of a number of common components of project proposals. These can include:

This is a brief heading that accurately captures the nature of the proposed work. Example: “Politics on the Lawn Events: Student Voices in a Post-truth Age”.

Aim/objective

This section provides the reader with an overarching rationale for your project that explains what you want to achieve and why it is significant. This should relate directly to the requirements found within your subject outline. If your project has more than one objective, each should be included as a single sentence or dot point.

Example: “Our project is designed to make a positive contribution to community recycling in the Illawarra. We aim to:

• identify the recycling options available to the Illawarra community
• explore community attitudes to recycling
• prepare a community resource kit which clarifies recycling options and encourages Illawarra residents to recycle more of their waste.”

Here you provide the background context against which you will conduct your project. This will include a brief summary of what is already known about the issue or topic as well as some of the problem areas that directly relate to your proposed work.

Certain disciplinary fields may want you to demonstrate your knowledge by placing your project in relation to published research or others’ work in the area. In some cases this may entail a literature review.

Ultimately, by the end of the background statement the reader should recognise the originality of your proposed work and understand its relevance.

This highlights how you will contain your project to ensure it is focussed and achievable.

For example, you might explain that you are limiting your work to a location such as “in the Illawarra”, to a group such as “first year students currently enrolled at university” or to a time period such as “in 2018”.

You should also explain what is out of scope, for example “excluding PhD students”.

Approach/methodology

The approach/methodology section describes the methods and materials that you intend to use within your project. It will detail how you will go about acquiring the information you need and explain how the project will be managed. If a particular theory or model is to be used, this should be stated. You could also include details such as timelines, budgets, locations, or the software to be used.

If you intend to conduct field work or collect empirical data as part of your major project, you must provide details about this, as your subject coordinator might need to give you advice about the university’s policies for safety or human research ethics.

Project team

If this is a group project, you would list each member and describe their planned role or contribution. You might also briefly mention how you will work as a group, for example how you will communicate or share work and how often you will meet.

This section should include the expected impacts and benefits of the proposed project. It is important that these be specific and realistic.

Example: “Outcomes of this project will include:

• a prototype of an engrossing, original computer game of professional standard
• a business plan for taking our game to market
• for team members, valuable insights, enhanced skills and an original work for portfolios.”

Bibliography

The bibliography should list all of the sources drawn upon to write the proposal, in the academic referencing style used by your school or faculty.

Further resources

• Developing an argument
• Literature reviews
• Research proposals

• Bulletin Board
• Policy Resources
• Current Version
• Status and Details
• Associated Information
• Historic Versions
• Future Versions

Procedures for the Review of Marks or Grades and other Academic Decisions (Coursework)

Section 1 - introduction, section 2 - scope, section 3 - flowchart, section 4 - stages in the review and appeal process, section 5 - faculty staff roles in the review and appeal process, section 6 - time limits, section 7 - support for students, section 8 - informal resolution, section 9 - formal resolution, section 10 - request to review a mark or grade, section 11 - request to review an academic decision, section 12 - administration and monitoring of formal reviews and appeals, faculty administration requirements, student ombudsman and deputy vice-chancellor (academic and student life) administration requirements, section 13 - stage 1a – review by head of school or nominee, deciding an outcome, appeal of a stage 1a outcome, section 14 - stage 1b – appeal to the faculty designate, appeal of a stage 1b outcome, section 15 - stage 2 – appeal to student ombudsman, conciliation, appeal of a stage 2 outcome, section 16 - stage 3 – appeal to deputy vice-chancellor (academic and student life), decision and outcome, section 17 - record keeping, section 18 - roles and responsibilities, section 19 - definitions, section 20 - schedule 1: offshore students and the application of procedures at a collaborative delivery partner institution, definitions, application, procedural modifications, section 21 - schedule 2: flowcharts.

(1) These Procedures provide a process for the review of an academic decision, action or omission by a staff member or a committee, or the review of a mark or grade, in a UOW coursework subject.

(2) These Procedures also provide for the appeal of a decision and outcome received in response to a formal review.

(3) These Procedures should be read in conjunction with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy which includes:

• the rules, codes and policies under which a student may request a review, section 4 Operational Scope;
• guiding principles by which the university will conduct its formal review and appeals processes, section 5 Guiding Principles;
• terms of reference for the Office of the Student Ombudsmen; and
• the University’s responsibilities in relation to managing conflicts of interest, record keeping, and the monitoring and improvement of the review and appeals policy and procedures.

(4) These Procedures apply to all undergraduate and postgraduate coursework students enrolled in subjects at the University.

(5) These Procedures apply where a Higher Degree Research (HDR) student of the University is undertaking a coursework subject as part of their HDR candidature. All other HDR reviews and appeals relating to HDR candidature are addressed under the Higher Degree Research (HDR) Student Academic Complaints Policy .

(6) For offshore students enrolled in a UOW course delivered by a collaborative delivery partner of the University, these Procedures apply with the modifications set out in Schedule 1.

(7) These Procedures do not apply to students studying at the University of Wollongong Dubai (UOWD), who may make academic complaints under the UOWD Student Academic Grievance Policy.

(8) A student may request an explanation of a mark for an assessment task or a final grade for a subject consistent with the student’s right to appropriate and useful feedback on their performance in an assessment task under the Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy .

(9) A student may also request further explanation for an academic decision, action or omission made by a staff member or a committee in relation to an academic policy including:

• Code of Practice – Honours;
• Code Of Practice - Work Integrated Learning (Professional Experience) ; 
• Coursework Rules ;
• Credit for Prior Learning Policy ;
• Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results ;
• Student Academic Consideration Policy ;
• Supplementary Assessment Procedure ;
• Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy ;
• Teaching and Assessment - Code of Practice - Teaching ;
• Subject Delivery Policy .

(10) Not included in the scope of these Procedures are UOW academic and administrative processes that provide a standalone review, appeal or a complaint resolution process in the relevant supporting policy.

(11) Students wishing to submit a formal complaint about a UOW product, a service or a facility, or the conduct of a student or staff member of the university, should consult the university’s Complaints Management Policy and contact the university’s Complaints Management Centre.

(12) A flowchart depicting the stages in the review and appeal process can be found at Schedule 2.

(13) The stages in the formal review and appeal process are:

• Stage 1a (School level): Review by Head of School or nominee (see section 13);
• Stage 1b (Faculty level): Appeal to the Faculty Designate (see section 14;
• Stage 2: Appeal to the Student Ombudsman (see section 15);
• Stage 3: Appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) (see section 16).

(14) The Stage 1a (School level) - undertaken by the Head of School or the Head of Academic Unit or by a nominee. A nominee will have experience and seniority in relation to the course or subject in which the student is enrolled, for example, Academic Program Director, Discipline Leader or similar.

(15) The Stage 1b (Faculty level) - undertaken by the Faculty Designate. The Faculty Designate will be a senior academic leader in the Faculty in a role such as the Associate Dean Education or the Associate Dean International. Other senior academic leaders may undertake the role of Faculty Designate, however it is recommended that the role be at the level of a Head of School or above.

(16) The following time limits are applied for a review or appeal at each stage:

(17) At each step in the process the staff member to whom the review or appeal has been submitted or assigned:

• may exercise their discretion to extend the specified time limit for the submission of a review or appeal, for example, where a student demonstrates compassionate or compelling circumstances; or
• in consultation with the student, extend the specified time to provide a decision, for example, where additional time is needed to gather evidence or convene a meeting before an outcome is decided.

(18) Where a time limit is for an outcome is extended, the investigating officer must ensure that:

• the student is aware of the rationale for the extension and the new date for receiving a decision; and
• that a record of the communication with the student, the rationale for the extension, and the new date is noted in the student’s case file.

(19) At all stages of the academic review and appeal process, a student may seek support. For example, a student may:

• seek assistance to interpret university policy or the requirements of the review and appeal process;
• seek advice on the preparation of their review request or appeal submission; or
• be accompanied and assisted by a support person at any relevant meeting.

(20) Support for students can be provided by staff or students of the university including:

• the Faculty Student Support Advisor;
• the School or Faculty Head of Students;
• a Student Advocacy Officer; or
• their relevant Student Systems.

(21) Students are encouraged to resolve their query or concern informally by speaking with an appropriate staff member, that has knowledge of the matter. The Subject Coordinator is usually the first person a student will contact.

(22) The university recognises that a student may wish to discuss their query or concern with someone other than their Subject Coordinator, or that the Subject Coordinator may not be available at a time convenient to the student.

(23) Students may also seek informal advice from other staff, such as:

• a member of the teaching team;
• a Client Services Officer;
• a Student Support Officer;
• the School or Faculty Head of Students; or
• a Student Advocacy Officer.

(24) At all times staff responding to an informal request should attempt to provide the student with an answer to their questions or concerns. Use supporting information such as subject outlines, marking rubrics and policy to assist the student in the resolution of their matter.

(25) After consideration of the student’s query or concern a Subject Coordinator may decide to:

• undertake remedial action in line with the responsibilities of their role, such as approving academic consideration or amending an undeclared mark for an assessment task; or
• recommend a remedial action to the delegated authority in the Faculty, such as the offer of a supplementary assessment or a change to a student’s mark or grade after the release of results, as per the Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results.

(26) The Subject Coordinator, or other member of staff consulted, will inform the student of their right to request a formal review should they wish to take their matter further.

(27) The student is not required to submit a formal review request unless they believe their query or concern remains unresolved after they have sought an informal resolution.

(28) In accordance with the Academic Advice to Students Policy , where staff provide specialised academic advice that impacts, or is likely to impact on a student's studies, it is recommended that the advice is confirmed in writing, such as by using a SOLS Mail message or by providing it to the student in some other written, electronically recorded form.

(29) Staff involved in an informal attempt to resolve a student’s request or concern will not investigate any subsequent formal review or appeal submitted by the student, as per the Conflict of Interest section in the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy .

(30) Where a student is not able to resolve their matter informally, as per section 8, a student may lodge a formal review request within ten business days of the date they were first provided with a mark or grade or they were made aware of the decision, action or omission that impacted their academic progress.

(31) In accordance with clause 16, a student may be allowed to submit a review request after ten business days if they are able to demonstrate that there were compassionate or compelling circumstances preventing them from submitting the request within the timeframe, in accordance with the Compassionate or Compelling Circumstances Guidelines .

(32) Where a student claims compassionate or compelling circumstances have affected their ability to submit their review, they must submit an explanation and evidence to support their claim.

(33) Formal requests and appeals must be submitted using the appropriate online form provided by the university, which is accessible via the university’s complaints management webpage.

(34) A student may lodge a formal request for a review of a mark or grade based on the following reasons:

• their work was not assessed in accordance with the assessment criteria specified in the relevant subject outline; or
• the assessment requirements as specified in the relevant subject outline were varied in an unreasonable way; or
• the assessment requirements specified in the relevant subject outline were unreasonably or prejudicially applied to the student; or
• an administrative or computation error has occurred in the finalisation of the mark or grade.

(35) The formal request for a review of a mark or grade must:

• specify the reason for the request, as per clause 34;
• clearly present the rationale for the review;
• describe the outcome that is wanted; and
• include relevant and current evidence to support the case.

(36) When presenting a rationale for their review request, as per clause 35(b), students are encouraged to refer to the relevant policy in order to clarify the issue they issue they have identified.

(37) A student may lodge a formal request for a review of an academic decision with regard to the policy documents provided for under these Procedures.

(38) The formal request to review an academic decision, action or omission must:

• specify the academic decision, action or omission that is the basis for the request;
• clearly present the rationale for the request, identifying how this has affected the student’s academic progress;
• describe the outcome that is being sought by the student; and

(39) When specifying the academic decision, action or omission as per clause 38(a) students are encouraged to refer to the relevant policy in order to clarify the issue they have identified.

(40) Formal requests and appeals must be managed using the online system and workflow, which is accessible via the university’s staff intranet.

(41) A Faculty Administrator, nominated by each faculty, will review formal Stage 1a requests and Stage 1b appeals and assign cases to the appropriate faculty staff member for investigation, with regard to section 5.

(42) The Faculty Administrator can close a case where there is insufficient information provided by the student or the case is considered to be a duplicate or spam. Where a case is to be closed the Faculty Administrator will contact the student to advise them of the outcome of the review request or appeal and detailed reasons for the outcome.

(43) The Faculty Administrator can reopen a previously closed case and assign the case for investigation, advising the student of any impact on the timeline for investigation.

(44) All Stage 1a and 1b cases will be monitored by the Faculty to whom the case has been submitted. Monitoring of cases will include:

• checking for new reviews and appeals in the online system and ensuring cases are assigned for investigation in a timely manner, with regard to section 6;
• reviewing new cases to ensure that students have provided the required information;
• where a case does not meet the requirements outlined in these Procedures or the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy , contacting the student and advising the student to provide further information or closing the case as per clause 42;
• reopening a closed case in response to a request by a student, such as when the student can demonstrate an administrative error has occurred or that compassionate or compelling circumstances warrant the case being reopened;
• reviewing cases that have been assigned for investigation to ensure that outcomes are provided within the required timeframe; and
• reassigning cases as requested, for example, where a staff member is not available or a staff member has a conflict of interest that prevents them from investigating the case.

(45) A University Academic Complaint and Appeals Administrator will review Stage 2 and Stage 3 appeals and assign each case to the delegated authority for investigation.

(46) All Stage 2 and Stage 3 cases will be monitored by the Academic Complaints and Appeals Administrator with regard to the monitoring activities set out under clause 44.

(47) An Executive Assistant to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) may support the Stage 3 delegated authority to prepare documentation and correspondence in relation to an appeal.

(48) The Head of School or nominee must investigate the request and decide the outcome in line with the time limits as provided for in section 6.

(49) The Head of School or nominee will investigate a review request with consideration to:

• what is the description, reason and the rationale provided by the student;
• what is the impact of this matter on the student’s academic progress; and
• what is the outcome being sought by the student.

(50) In their investigation the Head of School or nominee will also consider:

• information provided by the student regarding any feedback and academic advice they may have received in their attempt to resolve their matter informally;
• information provided by the Subject Coordinator (or other staff member) regarding any feedback or any academic advice given to the student;
• whether there was a moderation of assessment process, as per the Teaching and Assessment: Assessment and Feedback Policy , that was employed in the subject where the student’s matter arose;
• supporting documentation such as the subject outline, marking rubric, a copy of assessed student work, feedback provided on marked work, medical certificates etc.;
• the relevant policy or procedure and how this was applied in the student’s case; and
• any compassionate or compelling circumstance that may have relevance to the case.

(51) The Head of School or nominee may request further information from the student or from relevant staff either in person, by phone or other means, such as email.

(52) After investigating the review request the Head of School or nominee may:

• decline a review request, inform the student in writing of the outcome including detailed reasons for the outcome and take no further action; or
• uphold a review request, recommend remedial action and inform the student in writing of the outcome including detailed reasons for the outcome and details of the remedial action.

(53) If a review request is upheld, the Head of School or nominee may:

• recommend a new or revised mark and/or grade (to be approved by the delegated authority in accordance with the Standards for the Finalisation of Student Results);
• recommend other action be undertaken in relation to an academic decision provided for in a university policy and, if they are not the delegated authority, forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval and immediate implementation of the action.

(54) The Head of School or nominee must advise the student of their right to appeal the Stage 1a decision to the Faculty Designate.

(55) It is the responsibility of the Head of School or nominee to immediately implement any outcome or decision in favour of the student, including any recommended remedial action. This includes action that is to be taken by the student, a faculty administrative officer or an academic staff member in the faculty.

(56) A student may submit an appeal against the outcome of a review request on the following grounds:

• the final decision and outcome provided at Stage 1a was not supported by the available evidence;
• the faculty has not acted in accordance with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy or these Procedures in the handling of the case at Stage 1a of the process. This is also known as ‘providing procedural fairness’; or
• relevant additional information is now available that was not previously available.

(57) Any such appeal will be submitted to the Faculty Designate and shall:

• state the grounds for the appeal as per clause 56;
• provide a rationale;
• describe the outcome that is being sought; and
• include relevant documentary evidence.

(58) The Faculty Designate must investigate the appeal and decide the outcome in line with the time limits as provided for in section 6.

(59) The Faculty Designate will investigate a review request with consideration to:

• The grounds for the appeal and the rationale provided by the student in accordance with clause 56 and clause 57; and
• the outcome being sought by the student.

(60) In their investigation the Faculty Designate will also consider:

• information provided by the student at Stage 1a;
• supporting documentation;
• any compassionate or compelling circumstances that may have relevance to the case.

(61) The Faculty Designate may request further information from the student or from relevant staff either in person, by phone or other means, such as email.

(62) After investigating an appeal, the Faculty Designate may:

• decline the appeal, inform the student in writing of the outcome including detailed reasons for the outcome and take no further action; or
• uphold the appeal, recommend remedial action and inform the student in writing of the outcomeincluding detailed reasons for the outcome, including details of the remedial action.

(63) If an appeal is upheld, the Faculty Designate may recommend action be undertaken in relation to an academic decision, as provided for in a university policy, and forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval and immediate implementation.

(64) The Faculty Designate must advise the student of their right to appeal the Stage 1b decision to the Student Ombudsman.

(65) It is the responsibility of the Faculty Designate to ensure that any recommended action is undertaken in a timely manner. This includes action that is to be taken by the student, a faculty administrative officer or an academic staff member in the faculty.

(66) Where a student is not satisfied with the outcome of Stage 1b of the process, the student may appeal, in writing, to the Student Ombudsman within ten business days of the date of the response from the Faculty Designate, on the grounds that:

• the final decision and outcome provided at Stage 1a or 1b was not supported by the available evidence;
• the Faculty has not acted in accordance with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy or these Procedures in the handling of the case at Stage 1a or 1b of the process. This is also known as ‘providing procedural fairness’; or
• relevant new or additional information is now available that was not available at Stage 1a or 1b.

(67) The Stage 2 appeal must:

• state the grounds for the appeal as per clause 66;

(68) The Student Ombudsman will decide an outcome for a Stage 2 appeal within twenty (20) business days of having received the referral.

(69) Should the Student Ombudsman, following an initial review of the appeal, decide that the matter requires further consideration, the Student Ombudsman may request the Faculty prepare a report for the Student Ombudsman on the background to the matter.

(70) The Faculty must comply with any reasonable request for information as it relates to the Student Ombudsman's consideration of the issues raised in the appeal.

(71) In considering the appeal the Student Ombudsman will, where necessary in order to decide the appeal fairly and appropriately:

• give the student an opportunity to be heard and advise the student of procedures and time requirements;
• invite any staff member or student, to provide evidence in person or otherwise, that may assist the review;
• provide both the student and the person against whose decision the student is appealing with access to information considered by the Student Ombudsman in deciding the appeal;
• permit the student to nominate staff or students to be invited to speak with the Student Ombudsman in support of their case;
• allow the student to be accompanied by a person who may lend support but not address the Student Ombudsman on behalf of the student.

(72) In considering the appeal the Student Ombudsman will:

• keep an adequate record of the evidence; and
• with the consent of the student, allow any member of the university with sufficient justification to have access to that record.

(73) The Student Ombudsman may conciliate the matter in order to clarify the issues with the student and suggest possible directions for resolution of the student’s matter.

(74) The Student Ombudsman may, with the student's consent:

• refer the student to another person, or student representative body, who can provide relevant advice or assistance with the aim of resolving the student’s matter; and/or
• facilitate negotiation of the matter between the parties, with the aim of achieving a conciliated outcome that is acceptable to both parties.

(75) After examining the relevant documentation and, where necessary, speaking to the student and other relevant parties, the Student Ombudsman may:

• decline the appeal, inform the student of the outcome including detailed reasons for the outcome and take no further action;
• uphold an appeal, recommend remedial action and inform the student in writing of the outcome including detailed reasons for the outcome and including details of the remedial action; or
• facilitate a conciliated outcome in accordance with clause 73 to 74.

(76) If an appeal is upheld the Student Ombudsman may recommend remedial action to be taken and, with regard to the relevant university policy, forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval and immediate implementation.

(77) Where the Student Ombudsman recommends remedial action, they must notify the Faculty Designate and the relevant parties to the appeal, in writing, of that decision and request immediate implementation of that action.

(78) The Student Ombudsman must notify the student, in writing, of the student's right to appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) under Stage 3 if they believe that there are grounds for appeal as specified at clause 80.

(79) Where a student is not satisfied with the outcome of Stage 2 appeal, the student may appeal, in writing, to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) within ten (10) business days of the date of the response from the Student Ombudsman, on the grounds that:

• the faculty or the Student Ombudsman has not acted in accordance with the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy or these Procedures in the handling of the case at Stage 1a, Stage 1b or Stage 2 of the process. This is also known as ‘providing procedural fairness’;
• relevant new and substantial information, that was not previously considered, is now available.

(80) The appeal must:

• state, in full, the reasons for the appeal; and
• include any relevant documentary evidence to support the appeal.

(81) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) will decide an outcome for a Stage 3 appeal within ten (10) business days of having received the appeal.

(82) If the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) has had prior involvement in the matter, or is unable to review the appeal in the time frame provided for in clause 81, or if a conflict of interest exists, they will nominate an impartial and senior delegate to decide the outcome of the Stage 3 appeal.

(83) In the investigation of an appeal, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life), or delegate as per clause 82, may:

• ask any staff member to review the appeal, with regard to the principle of confidentiality, and provide advice in relation to the subject matter of the appeal, that may assist in the investigation;
• give the student concerned an opportunity to be heard and advise the student of procedures and time requirements;
• invite any staff member or student, that may assist in the review, to attend the meeting and advise such persons of procedures and time requirements;
• permit the student to nominate staff or students to be invited to appear in support of the appeal, and/or
• allow the student to be accompanied by a person who may lend support but who shall not be permitted to address the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate.

(84) After examining the relevant documentation and, where necessary, speaking to the student and other relevant parties, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate may:

• decline the appeal on the basis that there are insufficient grounds and/or insufficient evidence as per clause 79-80 and inform the student in writing of the outcome of the appeal including detailed reasons for the outcome; or
• uphold the appeal on the basis that the student has demonstrated sufficient grounds for their appeal and take appropriate action in accordance with clause 85-87 and inform the student in writing of the outcome including detailed reasons for the outcome, including details of any recommended remedial action.

(85) If an appeal is upheld the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate may recommend remedial action be taken and, with regard to the relevant university policy, forward this recommendation to the delegated authority for approval and immediate implementation of that action.

(86) Where the the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate recommends remedial action they must notify the Student Ombudsman and relevant parties to the appeal, in writing, of that decision and request immediate implementation of that action.

(87) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate will direct nominated staff to take immediate action as required and nominated staff will report back to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) on completion.

(88) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate must inform the student in writing of the outcome of their appeal including detailed reasons for the outcome, within ten (10) business days.

(89) The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) or delegate must keep an adequate record of their investigation, the evidence, their decision and any remedial action that was taken.

(90) All records of reviews and appeals managed under these procedures, including written records of the requests made by students and of the outcomes and reasons for those outcomes, must be maintained in accordance with the  Records Management Policy .

(91) The University has a responsibility to:

• ensure that these Procedures are accessible and communicated to all staff and students;
• ensure that these Procedures are implemented and applied consistently across all faculties and academic units; and
• promote best practice in resolving requests for the review of a mark or grade and academic decisions.

(92) Students and staff involved in the review and appeals process have a responsibility to follow the requirements of these Procedures and the Review and Appeal of Academic Decisions Policy .

(93) A collaborative delivery partner is a higher education provider operating within Australia or overseas (other than the University of Wollongong Dubai - UOWD) with which UOW has an agreement for the delivery of UOW courses in conjunction with that provider, under a formal collaborative delivery agreement.

(94) An offshore student refers to a person enrolled in a course or program offered by the University of Wollongong, in conjunction with a collaborative delivery partner, located at a campus outside of Australia.

(95) Where an offshore student is enrolled in a UOW coursework program, these Procedures apply with the modifications set out in this Schedule.

(96) The faculty who owns the course in which the student is enrolled will designate staff, either in the course owning faculty or at the collaborative delivery partner institution, to perform the roles specified in this policy as provide for in the table below.

(97) With regard to the roles assigned in section 4 of this Schedule, a Stage 1a review or Stage 1b appeal to the faculty will be managed in accordance with sections 13 and 14 of these Procedures.

(98) A Stage 2 appeal to the Student Ombudsman will be managed in accordance with section 15 of these Procedures.

(99) A Stage 3 appeal to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Student Life) will be managed in accordance with section 16 of these Procedures.

(100) Where a student is engaged in an appeal, the offshore partner institution is responsible for providing appropriate support to the student to enable fair and equitable access to support services and the technical infrastructure required for conducting meetings and interviews as per the Guidelines for Supporting Offshore Student Reviews and Appeals.

(101) A member of staff of UOW or the collaborative delivery partner may be present to assist the student at the collaborative delivery partner’s campus. This is in addition to the student’s right to nominate their own support person in accordance with these Procedures.

(102) Review of academic decisions flowchart

Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points

By Alina Chan

Dr. Chan is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.”

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

On Monday, Dr. Anthony Fauci returned to the halls of Congress and testified before the House subcommittee investigating the Covid-19 pandemic. He was questioned about several topics related to the government’s handling of Covid-19, including how the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he directed until retiring in 2022, supported risky virus work at a Chinese institute whose research may have caused the pandemic.

For more than four years, reflexive partisan politics have derailed the search for the truth about a catastrophe that has touched us all. It has been estimated that at least 25 million people around the world have died because of Covid-19, with over a million of those deaths in the United States.

Although how the pandemic started has been hotly debated, a growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China. If so, it would be the most costly accident in the history of science.

Here’s what we now know:

1 The SARS-like virus that caused the pandemic emerged in Wuhan, the city where the world’s foremost research lab for SARS-like viruses is located.

• At the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a team of scientists had been hunting for SARS-like viruses for over a decade, led by Shi Zhengli.
• Their research showed that the viruses most similar to SARS‑CoV‑2, the virus that caused the pandemic, circulate in bats that live r oughly 1,000 miles away from Wuhan. Scientists from Dr. Shi’s team traveled repeatedly to Yunnan province to collect these viruses and had expanded their search to Southeast Asia. Bats in other parts of China have not been found to carry viruses that are as closely related to SARS-CoV-2.

The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2 were found in southwestern China and in Laos.

Large cities

Mine in Yunnan province

Cave in Laos

South China Sea

The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2

were found in southwestern China and in Laos.

philippines

The closest known relatives to SARS-CoV-2 were found

in southwestern China and Laos.

Sources: Sarah Temmam et al., Nature; SimpleMaps

Note: Cities shown have a population of at least 200,000.

There are hundreds of large cities in China and Southeast Asia.

There are hundreds of large cities in China

and Southeast Asia.

The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away, in Wuhan, home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.

The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away,

in Wuhan, home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.

The pandemic started roughly 1,000 miles away, in Wuhan,

home to the world’s foremost SARS-like virus research lab.

• Even at hot spots where these viruses exist naturally near the cave bats of southwestern China and Southeast Asia, the scientists argued, as recently as 2019 , that bat coronavirus spillover into humans is rare .
• When the Covid-19 outbreak was detected, Dr. Shi initially wondered if the novel coronavirus had come from her laboratory , saying she had never expected such an outbreak to occur in Wuhan.
• The SARS‑CoV‑2 virus is exceptionally contagious and can jump from species to species like wildfire . Yet it left no known trace of infection at its source or anywhere along what would have been a thousand-mile journey before emerging in Wuhan.

2 The year before the outbreak, the Wuhan institute, working with U.S. partners, had proposed creating viruses with SARS‑CoV‑2’s defining feature.

• Dr. Shi’s group was fascinated by how coronaviruses jump from species to species. To find viruses, they took samples from bats and other animals , as well as from sick people living near animals carrying these viruses or associated with the wildlife trade. Much of this work was conducted in partnership with the EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based scientific organization that, since 2002, has been awarded over $80 million in federal funding to research the risks of emerging infectious diseases.
• The laboratory pursued risky research that resulted in viruses becoming more infectious : Coronaviruses were grown from samples from infected animals and genetically reconstructed and recombined to create new viruses unknown in nature. These new viruses were passed through cells from bats, pigs, primates and humans and were used to infect civets and humanized mice (mice modified with human genes). In essence, this process forced these viruses to adapt to new host species, and the viruses with mutations that allowed them to thrive emerged as victors.
• By 2019, Dr. Shi’s group had published a database describing more than 22,000 collected wildlife samples. But external access was shut off in the fall of 2019, and the database was not shared with American collaborators even after the pandemic started , when such a rich virus collection would have been most useful in tracking the origin of SARS‑CoV‑2. It remains unclear whether the Wuhan institute possessed a precursor of the pandemic virus.
• In 2021, The Intercept published a leaked 2018 grant proposal for a research project named Defuse , which had been written as a collaboration between EcoHealth, the Wuhan institute and Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina, who had been on the cutting edge of coronavirus research for years. The proposal described plans to create viruses strikingly similar to SARS‑CoV‑2.
• Coronaviruses bear their name because their surface is studded with protein spikes, like a spiky crown, which they use to enter animal cells. T he Defuse project proposed to search for and create SARS-like viruses carrying spikes with a unique feature: a furin cleavage site — the same feature that enhances SARS‑CoV‑2’s infectiousness in humans, making it capable of causing a pandemic. Defuse was never funded by the United States . However, in his testimony on Monday, Dr. Fauci explained that the Wuhan institute would not need to rely on U.S. funding to pursue research independently.

The Wuhan lab ran risky experiments to learn about how SARS-like viruses might infect humans.

1. Collect SARS-like viruses from bats and other wild animals, as well as from people exposed to them.

2. Identify high-risk viruses by screening for spike proteins that facilitate infection of human cells.

2. Identify high-risk viruses by screening for spike proteins that facilitate infection of

human cells.

In Defuse, the scientists proposed to add a furin cleavage site to the spike protein.

3. Create new coronaviruses by inserting spike proteins or other features that could make the viruses more infectious in humans.

4. Infect human cells, civets and humanized mice with the new coronaviruses, to determine how dangerous they might be.

• While it’s possible that the furin cleavage site could have evolved naturally (as seen in some distantly related coronaviruses), out of the hundreds of SARS-like viruses cataloged by scientists, SARS‑CoV‑2 is the only one known to possess a furin cleavage site in its spike. And the genetic data suggest that the virus had only recently gained the furin cleavage site before it started the pandemic.
• Ultimately, a never-before-seen SARS-like virus with a newly introduced furin cleavage site, matching the description in the Wuhan institute’s Defuse proposal, caused an outbreak in Wuhan less than two years after the proposal was drafted.
• When the Wuhan scientists published their seminal paper about Covid-19 as the pandemic roared to life in 2020, they did not mention the virus’s furin cleavage site — a feature they should have been on the lookout for, according to their own grant proposal, and a feature quickly recognized by other scientists.
• Worse still, as the pandemic raged, their American collaborators failed to publicly reveal the existence of the Defuse proposal. The president of EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, recently admitted to Congress that he doesn’t know about virus samples collected by the Wuhan institute after 2015 and never asked the lab’s scientists if they had started the work described in Defuse. In May, citing failures in EcoHealth’s monitoring of risky experiments conducted at the Wuhan lab, the Biden administration suspended all federal funding for the organization and Dr. Daszak, and initiated proceedings to bar them from receiving future grants. In his testimony on Monday, Dr. Fauci said that he supported the decision to suspend and bar EcoHealth.
• Separately, Dr. Baric described the competitive dynamic between his research group and the institute when he told Congress that the Wuhan scientists would probably not have shared their most interesting newly discovered viruses with him . Documents and email correspondence between the institute and Dr. Baric are still being withheld from the public while their release is fiercely contested in litigation.
• In the end, American partners very likely knew of only a fraction of the research done in Wuhan. According to U.S. intelligence sources, some of the institute’s virus research was classified or conducted with or on behalf of the Chinese military . In the congressional hearing on Monday, Dr. Fauci repeatedly acknowledged the lack of visibility into experiments conducted at the Wuhan institute, saying, “None of us can know everything that’s going on in China, or in Wuhan, or what have you. And that’s the reason why — I say today, and I’ve said at the T.I.,” referring to his transcribed interview with the subcommittee, “I keep an open mind as to what the origin is.”

3 The Wuhan lab pursued this type of work under low biosafety conditions that could not have contained an airborne virus as infectious as SARS‑CoV‑2.

• Labs working with live viruses generally operate at one of four biosafety levels (known in ascending order of stringency as BSL-1, 2, 3 and 4) that describe the work practices that are considered sufficiently safe depending on the characteristics of each pathogen. The Wuhan institute’s scientists worked with SARS-like viruses under inappropriately low biosafety conditions .

In the United States, virologists generally use stricter Biosafety Level 3 protocols when working with SARS-like viruses.

Biosafety cabinets prevent

viral particles from escaping.

Viral particles

Personal respirators provide

a second layer of defense against breathing in the virus.

DIRECT CONTACT

Gloves prevent skin contact.

Disposable wraparound

gowns cover much of the rest of the body.

Personal respirators provide a second layer of defense against breathing in the virus.

Disposable wraparound gowns

cover much of the rest of the body.

Note: ​​Biosafety levels are not internationally standardized, and some countries use more permissive protocols than others.

The Wuhan lab had been regularly working with SARS-like viruses under Biosafety Level 2 conditions, which could not prevent a highly infectious virus like SARS-CoV-2 from escaping.

Some work is done in the open air, and masks are not required.

Less protective equipment provides more opportunities

for contamination.

Some work is done in the open air,

and masks are not required.

Less protective equipment provides more opportunities for contamination.

• In one experiment, Dr. Shi’s group genetically engineered an unexpectedly deadly SARS-like virus (not closely related to SARS‑CoV‑2) that exhibited a 10,000-fold increase in the quantity of virus in the lungs and brains of humanized mice . Wuhan institute scientists handled these live viruses at low biosafet y levels , including BSL-2.
• Even the much more stringent containment at BSL-3 cannot fully prevent SARS‑CoV‑2 from escaping . Two years into the pandemic, the virus infected a scientist in a BSL-3 laboratory in Taiwan, which was, at the time, a zero-Covid country. The scientist had been vaccinated and was tested only after losing the sense of smell. By then, more than 100 close contacts had been exposed. Human error is a source of exposure even at the highest biosafety levels , and the risks are much greater for scientists working with infectious pathogens at low biosafety.
• An early draft of the Defuse proposal stated that the Wuhan lab would do their virus work at BSL-2 to make it “highly cost-effective.” Dr. Baric added a note to the draft highlighting the importance of using BSL-3 to contain SARS-like viruses that could infect human cells, writing that “U.S. researchers will likely freak out.” Years later, after SARS‑CoV‑2 had killed millions, Dr. Baric wrote to Dr. Daszak : “I have no doubt that they followed state determined rules and did the work under BSL-2. Yes China has the right to set their own policy. You believe this was appropriate containment if you want but don’t expect me to believe it. Moreover, don’t insult my intelligence by trying to feed me this load of BS.”
• SARS‑CoV‑2 is a stealthy virus that transmits effectively through the air, causes a range of symptoms similar to those of other common respiratory diseases and can be spread by infected people before symptoms even appear. If the virus had escaped from a BSL-2 laboratory in 2019, the leak most likely would have gone undetected until too late.
• One alarming detail — leaked to The Wall Street Journal and confirmed by current and former U.S. government officials — is that scientists on Dr. Shi’s team fell ill with Covid-like symptoms in the fall of 2019 . One of the scientists had been named in the Defuse proposal as the person in charge of virus discovery work. The scientists denied having been sick .

4 The hypothesis that Covid-19 came from an animal at the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan is not supported by strong evidence.

• In December 2019, Chinese investigators assumed the outbreak had started at a centrally located market frequented by thousands of visitors daily. This bias in their search for early cases meant that cases unlinked to or located far away from the market would very likely have been missed. To make things worse, the Chinese authorities blocked the reporting of early cases not linked to the market and, claiming biosafety precautions, ordered the destruction of patient samples on January 3, 2020, making it nearly impossible to see the complete picture of the earliest Covid-19 cases. Information about dozens of early cases from November and December 2019 remains inaccessible.
• A pair of papers published in Science in 2022 made the best case for SARS‑CoV‑2 having emerged naturally from human-animal contact at the Wuhan market by focusing on a map of the early cases and asserting that the virus had jumped from animals into humans twice at the market in 2019. More recently, the two papers have been countered by other virologists and scientists who convincingly demonstrate that the available market evidence does not distinguish between a human superspreader event and a natural spillover at the market.
• Furthermore, the existing genetic and early case data show that all known Covid-19 cases probably stem from a single introduction of SARS‑CoV‑2 into people, and the outbreak at the Wuhan market probably happened after the virus had already been circulating in humans.

An analysis of SARS-CoV-2’s evolutionary tree shows how the virus evolved as it started to spread through humans.

SARS-COV-2 Viruses closest

to bat coronaviruses

more mutations

Source: Lv et al., Virus Evolution (2024) , as reproduced by Jesse Bloom

The viruses that infected people linked to the market were most likely not the earliest form of the virus that started the pandemic.

• Not a single infected animal has ever been confirmed at the market or in its supply chain. Without good evidence that the pandemic started at the Huanan Seafood Market, the fact that the virus emerged in Wuhan points squarely at its unique SARS-like virus laboratory.

5 Key evidence that would be expected if the virus had emerged from the wildlife trade is still missing.

In previous outbreaks of coronaviruses, scientists were able to demonstrate natural origin by collecting multiple pieces of evidence linking infected humans to infected animals.

Infected animals

Earliest known

cases exposed to

live animals

Antibody evidence

of animals and

animal traders having

been infected

Ancestral variants

of the virus found in

Documented trade

of host animals

between the area

where bats carry

closely related viruses

and the outbreak site

Infected animals found

Earliest known cases exposed to live animals

Antibody evidence of animals and animal

traders having been infected

Ancestral variants of the virus found in animals

Documented trade of host animals

between the area where bats carry closely

related viruses and the outbreak site

For SARS-CoV-2, these same key pieces of evidence are still missing , more than four years after the virus emerged.

For SARS-CoV-2, these same key pieces of evidence are still missing ,

more than four years after the virus emerged.

• Despite the intense search trained on the animal trade and people linked to the market, investigators have not reported finding any animals infected with SARS‑CoV‑2 that had not been infected by humans. Yet, infected animal sources and other connective pieces of evidence were found for the earlier SARS and MERS outbreaks as quickly as within a few days, despite the less advanced viral forensic technologies of two decades ago.
• Even though Wuhan is the home base of virus hunters with world-leading expertise in tracking novel SARS-like viruses, investigators have either failed to collect or report key evidence that would be expected if Covid-19 emerged from the wildlife trade . For example, investigators have not determined that the earliest known cases had exposure to intermediate host animals before falling ill. No antibody evidence shows that animal traders in Wuhan are regularly exposed to SARS-like viruses, as would be expected in such situations.
• With today’s technology, scientists can detect how respiratory viruses — including SARS, MERS and the flu — circulate in animals while making repeated attempts to jump across species . Thankfully, these variants usually fail to transmit well after crossing over to a new species and tend to die off after a small number of infections. In contrast, virologists and other scientists agree that SARS‑CoV‑2 required little to no adaptation to spread rapidly in humans and other animals . The virus appears to have succeeded in causing a pandemic upon its only detected jump into humans.

The pandemic could have been caused by any of hundreds of virus species, at any of tens of thousands of wildlife markets, in any of thousands of cities, and in any year. But it was a SARS-like coronavirus with a unique furin cleavage site that emerged in Wuhan, less than two years after scientists, sometimes working under inadequate biosafety conditions, proposed collecting and creating viruses of that same design.

While several natural spillover scenarios remain plausible, and we still don’t know enough about the full extent of virus research conducted at the Wuhan institute by Dr. Shi’s team and other researchers, a laboratory accident is the most parsimonious explanation of how the pandemic began.

Given what we now know, investigators should follow their strongest leads and subpoena all exchanges between the Wuhan scientists and their international partners, including unpublished research proposals, manuscripts, data and commercial orders. In particular, exchanges from 2018 and 2019 — the critical two years before the emergence of Covid-19 — are very likely to be illuminating (and require no cooperation from the Chinese government to acquire), yet they remain beyond the public’s view more than four years after the pandemic began.

Whether the pandemic started on a lab bench or in a market stall, it is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan institute, as well as contributing to research that enhanced them . Advocates and funders of the institute’s research, including Dr. Fauci, should cooperate with the investigation to help identify and close the loopholes that allowed such dangerous work to occur. The world must not continue to bear the intolerable risks of research with the potential to cause pandemics .

A successful investigation of the pandemic’s root cause would have the power to break a decades-long scientific impasse on pathogen research safety, determining how governments will spend billions of dollars to prevent future pandemics. A credible investigation would also deter future acts of negligence and deceit by demonstrating that it is indeed possible to be held accountable for causing a viral pandemic. Last but not least, people of all nations need to see their leaders — and especially, their scientists — heading the charge to find out what caused this world-shaking event. Restoring public trust in science and government leadership requires it.

A thorough investigation by the U.S. government could unearth more evidence while spurring whistleblowers to find their courage and seek their moment of opportunity. It would also show the world that U.S. leaders and scientists are not afraid of what the truth behind the pandemic may be.

More on how the pandemic may have started

Where Did the Coronavirus Come From? What We Already Know Is Troubling.

Even if the coronavirus did not emerge from a lab, the groundwork for a potential disaster had been laid for years, and learning its lessons is essential to preventing others.

By Zeynep Tufekci

Why Does Bad Science on Covid’s Origin Get Hyped?

If the raccoon dog was a smoking gun, it fired blanks.

By David Wallace-Wells

A Plea for Making Virus Research Safer

A way forward for lab safety.

By Jesse Bloom

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Alina Chan ( @ayjchan ) is a molecular biologist at the Broad Institute of M.I.T. and Harvard, and a co-author of “ Viral : The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” She was a member of the Pathogens Project , which the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists organized to generate new thinking on responsible, high-risk pathogen research.

• Share full article

Advertisement