essay on gaia hypothesis

"The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota." - James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia

Suggested Readings:

• Margulis, L and J. Lovelock. 1976. Is Mars a Spaceship, Too? Natural History , June/July pp. 86-90

In this lesson, we learn:

• What are the weaknesses of the hypothesis? What are its strengths?
• What are some examples of Gaia-like feedbacks?

Jump to: [ Introduction ] [ Origin of the Hypothesis ] [ Examples of Regulation ] [ Alternatives to Gaia ] [ Many Gain Hypotheses ] [ Summary ]

1. introduction - gaia and global change, 2. the hypothesis and its originators.

3. Examples of Regulation of the Environment, According to Gaia

Perhaps life regulates the physical and chemical environment of the planet so as to maintain suitable planetary conditions for the good of life itself. If so, then the planet can be thought of as a single, integrated, living entity with self-regulating abilities. This is the radical view that Lovelock and Margulis have espoused. It can be thought of as the "strong Gaian model."

4. Alternatives to the Gaia Hypothesis

• The idea that climate and life influence one another is profoundly important. In some form or another, it has been recognized for a long time. Life and climate "grew up together" and influenced one another over most of earth history. But this is not to say that life somehow manages and self-optimizes its own environment. It is this idea -- the "strong form of Gaia" -- that is most controversial.

5. The Many Gaian Hypotheses

"...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima" (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974).

6. Modeling Gaia

You can model feedbacks using the classic Gaia example of Daisyworld with Stella or using this interactive Java applet .  The latter is especially useful to get a first-order understanding of changing parameters.  The Stella model permit more sophisticated analysis.

• The hypothesis has been defined and argued in numerous ways, and has as many critics as adherents. It is in need of more explicit formulation before it can be examined and tested as a true scientific theory.  
• Two models emerge: The model that life influences planetary processes (i.e., it has a substantial effect on abiotic processes) has become known as the weak Gaia hypothesis .  This model is widely supported. The original Gaia hypothesis, that life controls planetary processes (i.e., life created Earth's system), has become known as the strong Gaia hypothesis .  It is not widely accepted.

All materials © the Regents of the University of Michigan unless noted otherwise.

• Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
• Log in/Sign up

Video Upload Options

• MDPI and ACS Style
• Chicago Style

The Gaia hypothesis (/ˈɡaɪ.ə/), also known as the Gaia theory, Gaia paradigm, or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. The hypothesis was formulated by the chemist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s. Lovelock named the idea after Gaia, the primordial goddess who personified the Earth in Greek mythology. The suggestion that the theory should be called "the Gaia hypothesis" came from Lovelock's neighbour, William Golding. In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded Lovelock the Wollaston Medal in part for his work on the Gaia hypothesis. Topics related to the hypothesis include how the biosphere and the evolution of organisms affect the stability of global temperature, salinity of seawater, atmospheric oxygen levels, the maintenance of a hydrosphere of liquid water and other environmental variables that affect the habitability of Earth. The Gaia hypothesis was initially criticized for being teleological and against the principles of natural selection, but later refinements aligned the Gaia hypothesis with ideas from fields such as Earth system science, biogeochemistry and systems ecology. Even so, the Gaia hypothesis continues to attract criticism, and today many scientists consider it to be only weakly supported by, or at odds with, the available evidence.

1. Overview

Gaian hypotheses suggest that organisms co-evolve with their environment: that is, they "influence their abiotic environment, and that environment in turn influences the biota by Darwinian process". Lovelock (1995) gave evidence of this in his second book, Ages of Gaia , showing the evolution from the world of the early thermo-acido-philic and methanogenic bacteria towards the oxygen-enriched atmosphere today that supports more complex life.

A reduced version of the hypothesis has been called "influential Gaia" [ 1 ] in "Directed Evolution of the Biosphere: Biogeochemical Selection or Gaia?" by Andrei G. Lapenis, which states the biota influence certain aspects of the abiotic world, e.g. temperature and atmosphere. This is not the work of an individual but a collective of Russian scientific research that was combined into this peer reviewed publication. It states the coevolution of life and the environment through "micro-forces" [ 1 ] and biogeochemical processes. An example is how the activity of photosynthetic bacteria during Precambrian times completely modified the Earth atmosphere to turn it aerobic, and thus supports the evolution of life (in particular eukaryotic life).

Since barriers existed throughout the twentieth century between Russia and the rest of the world, it is only relatively recently that the early Russian scientists who introduced concepts overlapping the Gaia paradigm have become better known to the Western scientific community. [ 1 ] These scientists include Piotr Alekseevich Kropotkin (1842–1921) (although he spent much of his professional life outside Russia), Rafail Vasil’evich Rizpolozhensky (1862 – c. 1922), Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863–1945), and Vladimir Alexandrovich Kostitzin (1886–1963).

Biologists and Earth scientists usually view the factors that stabilize the characteristics of a period as an undirected emergent property or entelechy of the system; as each individual species pursues its own self-interest, for example, their combined actions may have counterbalancing effects on environmental change. Opponents of this view sometimes reference examples of events that resulted in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one at the end of the Archaean and the beginning of the Proterozoic periods.

Less accepted versions of the hypothesis claim that changes in the biosphere are brought about through the coordination of living organisms and maintain those conditions through homeostasis. In some versions of Gaia philosophy, all lifeforms are considered part of one single living planetary being called Gaia . In this view, the atmosphere, the seas and the terrestrial crust would be results of interventions carried out by Gaia through the coevolving diversity of living organisms.

The Gaia paradigm was an influence on the deep ecology movement. [ 2 ]

The Gaia hypothesis posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The hypothesis contends that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life. [ 3 ]

Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface, essential for the conditions of life, depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements. These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic disequilibrium state of the Earth system. [ 4 ]

The existence of a planetary homeostasis influenced by living forms had been observed previously in the field of biogeochemistry, and it is being investigated also in other fields like Earth system science. The originality of the Gaia hypothesis relies on the assessment that such homeostatic balance is actively pursued with the goal of keeping the optimal conditions for life, even when terrestrial or external events menace them. [ 5 ]

2.1. Regulation of Global Surface Temperature

Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; [ 6 ] however, the surface temperature of the planet has remained within the levels of habitability, reaching quite regular low and high margins. Lovelock has also hypothesised that methanogens produced elevated levels of methane in the early atmosphere, giving a view similar to that found in petrochemical smog, similar in some respects to the atmosphere on Titan. [ 7 ] This, he suggests tended to screen out ultraviolet until the formation of the ozone screen, maintaining a degree of homeostasis. However, the Snowball Earth [ 8 ] research has suggested that "oxygen shocks" and reduced methane levels led, during the Huronian, Sturtian and Marinoan/Varanger Ice Ages, to a world that very nearly became a solid "snowball". These epochs are evidence against the ability of the pre Phanerozoic biosphere to fully self-regulate.

Processing of the greenhouse gas CO 2 , explained below, plays a critical role in the maintenance of the Earth temperature within the limits of habitability.

The CLAW hypothesis, inspired by the Gaia hypothesis, proposes a feedback loop that operates between ocean ecosystems and the Earth's climate. [ 9 ] The hypothesis specifically proposes that particular phytoplankton that produce dimethyl sulfide are responsive to variations in climate forcing, and that these responses lead to a negative feedback loop that acts to stabilise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.

Currently the increase in human population and the environmental impact of their activities, such as the multiplication of greenhouse gases may cause negative feedbacks in the environment to become positive feedback. Lovelock has stated that this could bring an extremely accelerated global warming, [ 10 ] but he has since stated the effects will likely occur more slowly. [ 11 ]

Daisyworld simulations

In response to the criticism that the Gaia hypothesis seemingly required unrealistic group selection and cooperation between organisms, James Lovelock and Andrew Watson developed a mathematical model, Daisyworld, in which ecological competition underpinned planetary temperature regulation. [ 12 ]

Daisyworld examines the energy budget of a planet populated by two different types of plants, black daisies and white daisies, which are assumed to occupy a significant portion of the surface. The colour of the daisies influences the albedo of the planet such that black daisies absorb more light and warm the planet, while white daisies reflect more light and cool the planet. The black daisies are assumed to grow and reproduce best at a lower temperature, while the white daisies are assumed to thrive best at a higher temperature. As the temperature rises closer to the value the white daisies like, the white daisies outreproduce the black daisies, leading to a larger percentage of white surface, and more sunlight is reflected, reducing the heat input and eventually cooling the planet. Conversely, as the temperature falls, the black daisies outreproduce the white daisies, absorbing more sunlight and warming the planet. The temperature will thus converge to the value at which the reproductive rates of the plants are equal.

Lovelock and Watson showed that, over a limited range of conditions, this negative feedback due to competition can stabilize the planet's temperature at a value which supports life, if the energy output of the Sun changes, while a planet without life would show wide temperature changes. The percentage of white and black daisies will continually change to keep the temperature at the value at which the plants' reproductive rates are equal, allowing both life forms to thrive.

It has been suggested that the results were predictable because Lovelock and Watson selected examples that produced the responses they desired. [ 13 ]

2.2. Regulation of Oceanic Salinity

Ocean salinity has been constant at about 3.5% for a very long time. [ 14 ] Salinity stability in oceanic environments is important as most cells require a rather constant salinity and do not generally tolerate values above 5%. The constant ocean salinity was a long-standing mystery, because no process counterbalancing the salt influx from rivers was known. Recently it was suggested [ 15 ] that salinity may also be strongly influenced by seawater circulation through hot basaltic rocks, and emerging as hot water vents on mid-ocean ridges. However, the composition of seawater is far from equilibrium, and it is difficult to explain this fact without the influence of organic processes. One suggested explanation lies in the formation of salt plains throughout Earth's history. It is hypothesized that these are created by bacterial colonies that fix ions and heavy metals during their life processes. [ 14 ]

In the biogeochemical processes of Earth, sources and sinks are the movement of elements. The composition of salt ions within our oceans and seas is: sodium (Na + ), chlorine (Cl − ), sulfate (SO 4 2− ), magnesium (Mg 2+ ), calcium (Ca 2+ ) and potassium (K + ). The elements that comprise salinity do not readily change and are a conservative property of seawater. [ 14 ] There are many mechanisms that change salinity from a particulate form to a dissolved form and back. Considering the metallic composition of iron sources across a multifaceted grid of thermomagnetic design, not only would the movement of elements hypothetically help restructure the movement of ions, electrons, and the like, but would also potentially and inexplicably assist in balancing the magnetic bodies of the Earth's geomagnetic field. The known sources of sodium i.e. salts are when weathering, erosion, and dissolution of rocks are transported into rivers and deposited into the oceans.

The Mediterranean Sea as being Gaia's kidney is found (here) by Kenneth J. Hsue, a correspondence author in 2001. Hsue suggests the "desiccation" of the Mediterranean is evidence of a functioning Gaia "kidney". In this and earlier suggested cases, it is plate movements and physics, not biology, which performs the regulation. Earlier "kidney functions" were performed during the "deposition of the Cretaceous (South Atlantic), Jurassic (Gulf of Mexico), Permo-Triassic (Europe), Devonian ( Canada ), and Cambrian/Precambrian (Gondwana) saline giants." [ 16 ]

2.3. Regulation of Oxygen in the Atmosphere

The Gaia theorem states that the Earth's atmospheric composition is kept at a dynamically steady state by the presence of life. [ 17 ] The atmospheric composition provides the conditions that contemporary life has adapted to. All the atmospheric gases other than noble gases present in the atmosphere are either made by organisms or processed by them.

The stability of the atmosphere in Earth is not a consequence of chemical equilibrium. Oxygen is a reactive compound, and should eventually combine with gases and minerals of the Earth's atmosphere and crust. Oxygen only began to persist in the atmosphere in small quantities about 50 million years before the start of the Great Oxygenation Event. [ 18 ] Since the start of the Cambrian period, atmospheric oxygen concentrations have fluctuated between 15% and 35% of atmospheric volume. Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag Carbon precipitation, solution and fixation are influenced by the bacteria and plant roots in soils, where they improve gaseous circulation, or in coral reefs, where calcium carbonate is deposited as a solid on the sea floor. Calcium carbonate is used by living organisms to manufacture carbonaceous tests and shells. Once dead, the living organisms' shells fall. Some arrive at the bottom of the oceans where plate tectonics and heat and/or pressure eventually convert them to deposits of chalk and limestone. Much of the falling dead shells, however, re-dissolve into the ocean below the carbon compensation depth.

One of these organisms is Emiliania huxleyi , an abundant coccolithophore algae which may have a role in the formation of clouds. [ 19 ] CO 2 excess is compensated by an increase of coccolithophorid life, increasing the amount of CO 2 locked in the ocean floor. Coccolithophorids, if the CLAW Hypothesis turns out to be supported (see "Regulation of Global Surface Temperature" above), could help increase the cloud cover, hence control the surface temperature, help cool the whole planet and favor precipitation necessary for terrestrial plants. Lately the atmospheric CO 2 concentration has increased and there is some evidence that concentrations of ocean algal blooms are also increasing. [ 20 ]

Lichen and other organisms accelerate the weathering of rocks in the surface, while the decomposition of rocks also happens faster in the soil, thanks to the activity of roots, fungi, bacteria and subterranean animals. The flow of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to the soil is therefore regulated with the help of living beings. When CO 2 levels rise in the atmosphere the temperature increases and plants grow. This growth brings higher consumption of CO 2 by the plants, who process it into the soil, removing it from the atmosphere.

3.1. Precedents

The idea of the Earth as an integrated whole, a living being, has a long tradition. The mythical Gaia was the primal Greek goddess personifying the Earth, the Greek version of "Mother Nature" (from Ge = Earth, and Aia = PIE grandmother), or the Earth Mother. James Lovelock gave this name to his hypothesis after a suggestion from the novelist William Golding, who was living in the same village as Lovelock at the time (Bowerchalke, Wiltshire, UK). Golding's advice was based on Gea, an alternative spelling for the name of the Greek goddess, which is used as prefix in geology, geophysics and geochemistry. [ 21 ] Golding later made reference to Gaia in his Nobel prize acceptance speech.

In the eighteenth century, as geology consolidated as a modern science, James Hutton maintained that geological and biological processes are interlinked. [ 22 ] Later, the naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt recognized the coevolution of living organisms, climate, and Earth's crust. [ 22 ] In the twentieth century, Vladimir Vernadsky formulated a theory of Earth's development that is now one of the foundations of ecology. Vernadsky was a Ukrainian geochemist and was one of the first scientists to recognize that the oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere result from biological processes. During the 1920s he published works arguing that living organisms could reshape the planet as surely as any physical force. Vernadsky was a pioneer of the scientific bases for the environmental sciences. [ 23 ] His visionary pronouncements were not widely accepted in the West, and some decades later the Gaia hypothesis received the same type of initial resistance from the scientific community.

Also in the turn to the 20th century Aldo Leopold, pioneer in the development of modern environmental ethics and in the movement for wilderness conservation, suggested a living Earth in his biocentric or holistic ethics regarding land.

Another influence for the Gaia hypothesis and the environmental movement in general came as a side effect of the Space Race between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. During the 1960s, the first humans in space could see how the Earth looked as a whole. The photograph Earthrise taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission became, through the Overview Effect an early symbol for the global ecology movement. [ 24 ]

3.2. Formulation of the Hypothesis

Lovelock started defining the idea of a self-regulating Earth controlled by the community of living organisms in September 1965, while working at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California on methods of detecting life on Mars. [ 25 ] [ 26 ] The first paper to mention it was Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other Changes Associated with the Presence of Life , co-authored with C.E. Giffin. [ 27 ] A main concept was that life could be detected in a planetary scale by the chemical composition of the atmosphere. According to the data gathered by the Pic du Midi observatory, planets like Mars or Venus had atmospheres in chemical equilibrium. This difference with the Earth atmosphere was considered to be a proof that there was no life in these planets.

Lovelock formulated the Gaia Hypothesis in journal articles in 1972 [ 28 ] and 1974, [ 29 ] followed by a popularizing 1979 book Gaia: A new look at life on Earth . An article in the New Scientist of February 6, 1975, [ 30 ] and a popular book length version of the hypothesis, published in 1979 as The Quest for Gaia , began to attract scientific and critical attention.

Lovelock called it first the Earth feedback hypothesis, [ 31 ] and it was a way to explain the fact that combinations of chemicals including oxygen and methane persist in stable concentrations in the atmosphere of the Earth. Lovelock suggested detecting such combinations in other planets' atmospheres as a relatively reliable and cheap way to detect life.

Later, other relationships such as sea creatures producing sulfur and iodine in approximately the same quantities as required by land creatures emerged and helped bolster the hypothesis. [ 32 ]

In 1971 microbiologist Dr. Lynn Margulis joined Lovelock in the effort of fleshing out the initial hypothesis into scientifically proven concepts, contributing her knowledge about how microbes affect the atmosphere and the different layers in the surface of the planet. [ 33 ] The American biologist had also awakened criticism from the scientific community with her advocacy of the theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, nowadays accepted. Margulis dedicated the last of eight chapters in her book, The Symbiotic Planet , to Gaia. However, she objected to the widespread personification of Gaia and stressed that Gaia is "not an organism", but "an emergent property of interaction among organisms". She defined Gaia as "the series of interacting ecosystems that compose a single huge ecosystem at the Earth's surface. Period". The book's most memorable "slogan" was actually quipped by a student of Margulis'.

James Lovelock called his first proposal the Gaia hypothesis but has also used the term Gaia theory . Lovelock states that the initial formulation was based on observation, but still lacked a scientific explanation. The Gaia hypothesis has since been supported by a number of scientific experiments [ 34 ] and provided a number of useful predictions. [ 35 ]

3.3. First Gaia Conference

In 1985, the first public symposium on the Gaia hypothesis, Is The Earth A Living Organism? was held at University of Massachusetts Amherst, August 1–6. [ 36 ] The principal sponsor was the National Audubon Society. Speakers included James Lovelock, George Wald, Mary Catherine Bateson, Lewis Thomas, John Todd, Donald Michael, Christopher Bird, Thomas Berry, David Abram, Michael Cohen, and William Fields. Some 500 people attended. [ 37 ]

3.4. Second Gaia Conference

In 1988, climatologist Stephen Schneider organised a conference of the American Geophysical Union. The first Chapman Conference on Gaia, [ 38 ] was held in San Diego, California on March 7, 1988.

During the "philosophical foundations" session of the conference, David Abram spoke on the influence of metaphor in science, and of the Gaia hypothesis as offering a new and potentially game-changing metaphorics, while James Kirchner criticised the Gaia hypothesis for its imprecision. Kirchner claimed that Lovelock and Margulis had not presented one Gaia hypothesis, but four:

• CoEvolutionary Gaia: that life and the environment had evolved in a coupled way. Kirchner claimed that this was already accepted scientifically and was not new.
• Homeostatic Gaia: that life maintained the stability of the natural environment, and that this stability enabled life to continue to exist.
• Geophysical Gaia: that the Gaia hypothesis generated interest in geophysical cycles and therefore led to interesting new research in terrestrial geophysical dynamics.
• Optimising Gaia: that Gaia shaped the planet in a way that made it an optimal environment for life as a whole. Kirchner claimed that this was not testable and therefore was not scientific.

Of Homeostatic Gaia, Kirchner recognised two alternatives. "Weak Gaia" asserted that life tends to make the environment stable for the flourishing of all life. "Strong Gaia" according to Kirchner, asserted that life tends to make the environment stable, to enable the flourishing of all life. Strong Gaia, Kirchner claimed, was untestable and therefore not scientific. [ 39 ]

Lovelock and other Gaia-supporting scientists, however, did attempt to disprove the claim that the hypothesis is not scientific because it is impossible to test it by controlled experiment. For example, against the charge that Gaia was teleological, Lovelock and Andrew Watson offered the Daisyworld Model (and its modifications, above) as evidence against most of these criticisms. [ 12 ] Lovelock said that the Daisyworld model "demonstrates that self-regulation of the global environment can emerge from competition amongst types of life altering their local environment in different ways". [ 40 ]

Lovelock was careful to present a version of the Gaia hypothesis that had no claim that Gaia intentionally or consciously maintained the complex balance in her environment that life needed to survive. It would appear that the claim that Gaia acts "intentionally" was a statement in his popular initial book and was not meant to be taken literally. This new statement of the Gaia hypothesis was more acceptable to the scientific community. Most accusations of teleologism ceased, following this conference.

3.5. Third Gaia Conference

By the time of the 2nd Chapman Conference on the Gaia Hypothesis, held at Valencia, Spain, on 23 June 2000, [ 41 ] the situation had changed significantly. Rather than a discussion of the Gaian teleological views, or "types" of Gaia hypotheses, the focus was upon the specific mechanisms by which basic short term homeostasis was maintained within a framework of significant evolutionary long term structural change.

The major questions were: [ 42 ]

• "How has the global biogeochemical/climate system called Gaia changed in time? What is its history? Can Gaia maintain stability of the system at one time scale but still undergo vectorial change at longer time scales? How can the geologic record be used to examine these questions?"
• "What is the structure of Gaia? Are the feedbacks sufficiently strong to influence the evolution of climate? Are there parts of the system determined pragmatically by whatever disciplinary study is being undertaken at any given time or are there a set of parts that should be taken as most true for understanding Gaia as containing evolving organisms over time? What are the feedbacks among these different parts of the Gaian system, and what does the near closure of matter mean for the structure of Gaia as a global ecosystem and for the productivity of life?"
• "How do models of Gaian processes and phenomena relate to reality and how do they help address and understand Gaia? How do results from Daisyworld transfer to the real world? What are the main candidates for "daisies"? Does it matter for Gaia theory whether we find daisies or not? How should we be searching for daisies, and should we intensify the search? How can Gaian mechanisms be collaborated with using process models or global models of the climate system that include the biota and allow for chemical cycling?"

In 1997, Tyler Volk argued that a Gaian system is almost inevitably produced as a result of an evolution towards far-from-equilibrium homeostatic states that maximise entropy production, and Kleidon (2004) agreed stating: "...homeostatic behavior can emerge from a state of MEP associated with the planetary albedo"; "...the resulting behavior of a symbiotic Earth at a state of MEP may well lead to near-homeostatic behavior of the Earth system on long time scales, as stated by the Gaia hypothesis". Staley (2002) has similarly proposed "...an alternative form of Gaia theory based on more traditional Darwinian principles... In [this] new approach, environmental regulation is a consequence of population dynamics. The role of selection is to favor organisms that are best adapted to prevailing environmental conditions. However, the environment is not a static backdrop for evolution, but is heavily influenced by the presence of living and vibration-based beings and organisms. The resulting co-evolving dynamical process eventually leads to the convergence of equilibrium and optimal conditions", but would also require progress of truth and understanding in a lens that could be argued was put on hiatus while the species was proliferating the needs of Economic manipulation and environmental degradation while losing sight of the maturing nature of the needs of many. (12:22 10.29.2020)

3.6. Fourth Gaia Conference

A fourth international conference on the Gaia hypothesis, sponsored by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority and others, was held in October 2006 at the Arlington, VA campus of George Mason University. [ 43 ]

Martin Ogle, Chief Naturalist, for NVRPA, and long-time Gaia hypothesis proponent, organized the event. Lynn Margulis, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, and long-time advocate of the Gaia hypothesis, was a keynote speaker. Among many other speakers: Tyler Volk, co-director of the Program in Earth and Environmental Science at New York University; Dr. Donald Aitken, Principal of Donald Aitken Associates; Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Robert Correll, Senior Fellow, Atmospheric Policy Program, American Meteorological Society and noted environmental ethicist, J. Baird Callicott.

4. Criticism

After initially receiving little attention from scientists (from 1969 until 1977), thereafter for a period the initial Gaia hypothesis was criticized by a number of scientists, including Ford Doolittle, [ 44 ] Richard Dawkins [ 45 ] and Stephen Jay Gould. [ 38 ] Lovelock has said that because his hypothesis is named after a Greek goddess, and championed by many non-scientists, [ 31 ] the Gaia hypothesis was interpreted as a neo-Pagan religion. Many scientists in particular also criticized the approach taken in his popular book Gaia, a New Look at Life on Earth for being teleological—a belief that things are purposeful and aimed towards a goal. Responding to this critique in 1990, Lovelock stated, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota".

Stephen Jay Gould criticized Gaia as being "a metaphor, not a mechanism." [ 46 ] He wanted to know the actual mechanisms by which self-regulating homeostasis was achieved. In his defense of Gaia, David Abram argues that Gould overlooked the fact that "mechanism", itself, is a metaphor — albeit an exceedingly common and often unrecognized metaphor — one which leads us to consider natural and living systems as though they were machines organized and built from outside (rather than as autopoietic or self-organizing phenomena). Mechanical metaphors, according to Abram, lead us to overlook the active or agent quality of living entities, while the organismic metaphors of the Gaia hypothesis accentuate the active agency of both the biota and the biosphere as a whole. [ 47 ] [ 48 ] With regard to causality in Gaia, Lovelock argues that no single mechanism is responsible, that the connections between the various known mechanisms may never be known, that this is accepted in other fields of biology and ecology as a matter of course, and that specific hostility is reserved for his own hypothesis for other reasons. [ 49 ]

Aside from clarifying his language and understanding of what is meant by a life form, Lovelock himself ascribes most of the criticism to a lack of understanding of non-linear mathematics by his critics, and a linearizing form of greedy reductionism in which all events have to be immediately ascribed to specific causes before the fact. He also states that most of his critics are biologists but that his hypothesis includes experiments in fields outside biology, and that some self-regulating phenomena may not be mathematically explainable. [ 49 ]

4.1. Natural Selection and Evolution

Lovelock has suggested that global biological feedback mechanisms could evolve by natural selection, stating that organisms that improve their environment for their survival do better than those that damage their environment. However, in the early 1980s, W. Ford Doolittle and Richard Dawkins separately argued against this aspect of Gaia. Doolittle argued that nothing in the genome of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms proposed by Lovelock, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis proposed no plausible mechanism and was unscientific. [ 44 ] Dawkins meanwhile stated that for organisms to act in concert would require foresight and planning, which is contrary to the current scientific understanding of evolution. [ 45 ] Like Doolittle, he also rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilize the system.

Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist who collaborated with Lovelock in supporting the Gaia hypothesis, argued in 1999 that "Darwin's grand vision was not wrong, only incomplete. In accentuating the direct competition between individuals for resources as the primary selection mechanism, Darwin (and especially his followers) created the impression that the environment was simply a static arena". She wrote that the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere are regulated around "set points" as in homeostasis, but those set points change with time. [ 50 ]

Evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton called the concept of Gaia Copernican, adding that it would take another Newton to explain how Gaian self-regulation takes place through Darwinian natural selection. [ 21 ] More recently Ford Doolittle building on his and Inkpen's ITSNTS (It's The Song Not The Singer) proposal [ 51 ] proposed that differential persistence can play a similar role to differential reproduction in evolution by natural selections, thereby providing a possible reconciliation between the theory of natural selection and the Gaia hypothesis. [ 52 ]

4.2. Criticism in the 21st Century

The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly skeptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it. [ 53 ] [ 54 ] Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties" [ 55 ] to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background" [ 56 ] to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record". [ 57 ] The CLAW hypothesis, [ 9 ] initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of cloud condensation nuclei has improved. [ 58 ] In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis. [ 59 ]

In a 2013 book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines, Toby Tyrrell concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end*. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognize that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it". [ 60 ] Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works". [ 61 ] This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense and that those two forms were already accepted and explained by the processes of natural selection and adaptation. [ 62 ]

• Lapenis, Andrei G. (2002). "Directed Evolution of the Biosphere: Biogeochemical Selection or Gaia?". The Professional Geographer 54 (3): 379–391. doi:10.1111/0033-0124.00337.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F0033-0124.00337
• David Landis Barnhill, Roger S. Gottlieb(eds.), Deep Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Ground, SUNY Press, 2010, p. 32.
• Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, p. 255. ISBN:978-0-465-01549-8
• Kleidon, Axel. How does the earth system generate and maintain thermodynamic disequilibrium and what does it imply for the future of the planet?. Article submitted to the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on Thu, 10 Mar 2011
• Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, p. 179. ISBN:978-0-465-01549-8
• Owen, T.; Cess, R.D.; Ramanathan, V. (1979). "Earth: An enhanced carbon dioxide greenhouse to compensate for reduced solar luminosity". Nature 277 (5698): 640–2. doi:10.1038/277640a0. Bibcode: 1979Natur.277..640O.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F277640a0
• Lovelock, James, (1995) "The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth" (W.W.Norton & Co)
• Hoffman, P.F. 2001. Snowball Earth theory http://www.snowballearth.org
• Charlson, R. J., Lovelock, J. E, Andreae, M. O. and Warren, S. G. (1987). "Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate". Nature 326 (6114): 655–661. doi:10.1038/326655a0. Bibcode: 1987Natur.326..655C.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F326655a0
• Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, ISBN:978-0-465-01549-8
• Lovelock J., NBC News. Link Published 23 April 2012, accessed 22 August 2012. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
• Watson, A.J.; Lovelock, J.E (1983). "Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld". Tellus 35B (4): 286–9. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.1983.tb00031.x. Bibcode: 1983TellB..35..284W.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1600-0889.1983.tb00031.x
• Kirchner, James W. (2003). "The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations". Climatic Change 58 (1–2): 21–45. doi:10.1023/A:1023494111532.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1023494111532
• Segar, Douglas (2012). The Introduction to Ocean Sciences. Library of Congress. pp. Chapter 5 3rd Edition. ISBN 978-0-9857859-0-1. http://www.reefimages.com/oceans/SegarOcean3Chap05.pdf. 
• Gorham, Eville (1 January 1991). "Biogeochemistry: its origins and development". Biogeochemistry (Kluwer Academic) 13 (3): 199–239. doi:10.1007/BF00002942. ISSN 1573-515X.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00002942
• "Scientia Marina: List of Issues" (in en). http://scimar.icm.csic.es/scimar/index.php/secId/6/IdArt/209/. 
• Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, p. 163. ISBN:978-0-465-01549-8
• Anbar, A.; Duan, Y.; Lyons, T.; Arnold, G.; Kendall, B.; Creaser, R.; Kaufman, A.; Gordon, G. et al. (2007). "A whiff of oxygen before the great oxidation event?". Science 317 (5846): 1903–1906. doi:10.1126/science.1140325. PMID 17901330. Bibcode: 2007Sci...317.1903A.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.1140325
• Harding, Stephan (2006). Animate Earth. Chelsea Green Publishing. pp. 65. ISBN 978-1-933392-29-5. 
• "Interagency Report Says Harmful Algal Blooms Increasing". 12 September 2007. http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2007/sep07/noaa07-r435.html. 
• Lovelock, James. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. Basic Books, 2009, pp. 195-197. ISBN:978-0-465-01549-8
• Capra, Fritjof (1996). The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-385-47675-1. https://archive.org/details/weboflifenewscie00capr/page/23. 
• S.R. Weart, 2003, The Discovery of Global Warming, Cambridge, Harvard Press
• 100 Photographs that Changed the World by Life - The Digital Journalist http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm11.html
• Lovelock, J.E. (1965). "A physical basis for life detection experiments". Nature 207 (7): 568–570. doi:10.1038/207568a0. PMID 5883628. Bibcode: 1965Natur.207..568L.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F207568a0
• "Geophysiology". http://www.jameslovelock.org/page4.html. 
• Lovelock, J.E.; Giffin, C.E. (1969). "Planetary Atmospheres: Compositional and other changes associated with the presence of Life". Advances in the Astronautical Sciences 25: 179–193. ISBN 978-0-87703-028-7. 
• J. E. Lovelock (1972). "Gaia as seen through the atmosphere". Atmospheric Environment 6 (8): 579–580. doi:10.1016/0004-6981(72)90076-5. Bibcode: 1972AtmEn...6..579L.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0004-6981%2872%2990076-5
• Lovelock, J.E.; Margulis, L. (1974). "Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis". Tellus. Series A (Stockholm: International Meteorological Institute) 26 (1–2): 2–10. doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1974.tb01946.x. ISSN 1600-0870. Bibcode: 1974Tell...26....2L.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.2153-3490.1974.tb01946.x
• Lovelock, John and Sidney Epton, (February 8, 1975). "The quest for Gaia". New Scientist, p. 304. https://books.google.com/books?id=pnV6UYEkU4YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Lovelock, James 2001
• Hamilton, W.D.; Lenton, T.M. (1998). "Spora and Gaia: how microbes fly with their clouds" (PDF). Ethology Ecology & Evolution 10 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/08927014.1998.9522867. http://ejour-fup.unifi.it/index.php/eee/article/viewFile/787/733. 
• Turney, Jon (2003). Lovelock and Gaia: Signs of Life. UK: Icon Books. ISBN 978-1-84046-458-0. https://archive.org/details/lovelockgaiasign0000turn. 
• J. E. Lovelock (1990). "Hands up for the Gaia hypothesis". Nature 344 (6262): 100–2. doi:10.1038/344100a0. Bibcode: 1990Natur.344..100L.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1038%2F344100a0
• Volk, Tyler (2003). Gaia's Body: Toward a Physiology of Earth. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-72042-7. 
• Joseph, Lawrence E. (November 23, 1986). "Britain's Whole Earth Guru". The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/23/magazine/britain-s-whole-earth-guru.html. 
• Bunyard, Peter (1996), "Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth" (Floris Books)
• Turney, Jon. "Lovelock and Gaia: Signs of Life" (Revolutions in Science)
• Kirchner, James W. (1989). "The Gaia hypothesis: Can it be tested?". Reviews of Geophysics 27 (2): 223. doi:10.1029/RG027i002p00223. Bibcode: 1989RvGeo..27..223K.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2FRG027i002p00223
• Lenton, TM; Lovelock, JE (2000). "Daisyworld is Darwinian: Constraints on adaptation are important for planetary self-regulation". Journal of Theoretical Biology 206 (1): 109–14. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2105. PMID 10968941. Bibcode: 2000JThBi.206..109L.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1006%2Fjtbi.2000.2105
• Simón, Federico (21 June 2000). "GEOLOGÍA Enfoque multidisciplinar La hipótesis Gaia madura en Valencia con los últimos avances científicos" (in es). El País. http://elpais.com/diario/2000/06/21/futuro/961538404_850215.html. 
• American Geophysical Union. "General Information Chapman Conference on the Gaia Hypothesis University of Valencia Valencia, Spain June 19-23, 2000 (Monday through Friday)". AGU Meetings. http://www.agu.org/meetings/chapman/chapman_archive/cc00bcall.html. 
• Official Site of Arlington County Virginia. "Gaia Theory Conference at George Mason University Law School". http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/Communications/PressReleases/page7530.aspx. 
• Doolittle, W. F. (1981). "Is Nature Really Motherly". The Coevolution Quarterly Spring: 58–63. 
• Dawkins, Richard (1982). The Extended Phenotype: the Long Reach of the Gene. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-286088-0. 
• Gould S.J. (June 1997). "Kropotkin was no crackpot". Natural History 106: 12–21. http://libcom.org/library/kropotkin-was-no-crackpot. 
• Abram, D. (1988) "The Mechanical and the Organic: On the Impact of Metaphor in Science" in Scientists on Gaia, edited by Stephen Schneider and Penelope Boston, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1991
• "The Mechanical and the Organic". http://www.wildethics.org/essays/the_mechanical_and_the_organic.html. 
• Lovelock, James (2001), Homage to Gaia: The Life of an Independent Scientist (Oxford University Press)
• Margulis, Lynn. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look At Evolution. Houston: Basic Book 1999
• Doolittle WF, Inkpen SA. Processes and patterns of interaction as units of selection: An introduction to ITSNTS thinking. PNAS April 17, 2018 115 (16) 4006-4014 https://www.pnas.org/content/115/16/4006
• Doolittle, W. Ford (2017). "Darwinizing Gaia". Journal of Theoretical Biology 434: 11–19. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.02.015. PMID 28237396. Bibcode: 2017JThBi.434...11D. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.02.015. 
• Kirchner, James W. (2002), "Toward a future for Gaia theory", Climatic Change 52 (4): 391–408, doi:10.1023/a:1014237331082  https://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2Fa%3A1014237331082
• Volk, Tyler (2002), "The Gaia hypothesis: fact, theory, and wishful thinking", Climatic Change 52 (4): 423–430, doi:10.1023/a:1014218227825  https://dx.doi.org/10.1023%2Fa%3A1014218227825
• Waltham, David (2014). Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional – and What that Means for Life in the Universe. Icon Books. ISBN 9781848316560. https://archive.org/details/luckyplanetwhyea0000walt. 
• Beerling, David (2007). The Emerald Planet: How plants changed Earth's history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280602-4. http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780192806024.do. 
• Cockell, Charles; Corfield, Richard; Dise, Nancy; Edwards, Neil; Harris, Nigel (2008). An Introduction to the Earth-Life System. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521729536. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/earth-and-environmental-science/palaeontology-and-life-history/introduction-earth-life-system. 
• Quinn, P.K.; Bates, T.S. (2011), "The case against climate regulation via oceanic phytoplankton sulphur emissions", Nature 480 (7375): 51–56, doi:10.1038/nature10580, PMID 22129724, Bibcode: 2011Natur.480...51Q, https://zenodo.org/record/1233319 
• Peter Ward (2009), The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destruction?, ISBN:0-691-13075-2
• Tyrrell, Toby (2013), On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 209, ISBN 9780691121581, http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9959.html 
• Tyrrell, Toby (26 October 2013), "Gaia: the verdict is…", New Scientist 220 (2940): 30–31, doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(13)62532-4  https://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0262-4079%2813%2962532-4
• Tyrrell, Toby (2013), On Gaia: A Critical Investigation of the Relationship between Life and Earth, Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 208, ISBN 9780691121581, http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9959.html 

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Advisory Board

The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations

• Published: May 2003
• Volume 58 , pages 21–45, ( 2003 )

Cite this article

• James W. Kirchner 1  

2966 Accesses

32 Citations

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The uncertainties surrounding global climate change provide ample evidence, if any were necessary, of the need for a whole-system view of the Earth. Arguably the most visible – and controversial – attempt to understand Earth as a system has been Lovelock's Gaia theory. Gaia has been a fruitful hypothesis generator, and has prompted many intriguing conjectures about how biological processes might contribute to planetary-scale regulation of atmospheric chemistry and climate. In many important cases, however, these conjectures are refuted by the available data. For example, Gaia theory predicts that the composition of the atmosphere should be tightly regulated by biological processes, but rates of carbon uptake into the biosphere have accelerated by only about 2% in response to the 35% rise in atmospheric CO 2 since pre-industrial times. Gaia theory would predict that atmospheric CO 2 should be more sensitively regulated by terrestrial ecosystem uptake (which is biologically mediated) than by ocean uptake (which is primarily abiotic), but both processes are about equally insensitive to atmospheric CO 2 levels. Gaia theory predicts that biological feedbacks should make the Earth system less sensitive to perturbation, but the best available data suggest that the net effect of biologically mediated feedbacks will be to amplify, not reduce, the Earth system's sensitivity to anthropogenic climate change. Gaia theory predicts that biological by-products in the atmosphere should act as planetary climate regulators, but the Vostok ice core indicates that CO 2 , CH 4 , and dimethyl sulfide – all biological by-products – function to make the Earth warmer when it is warm, and colder when it is cold. Gaia theory predicts that biological feedbacks should regulate Earth's climate over the long term, but peaks in paleotemperature correspond to peaks in paleo-CO 2 in records stretching back to the Permian; thus if CO 2 is biologically regulated as part of a global thermostat, that thermostat has been hooked up backwards for at least the past 300 million years. Gaia theory predicts that organisms alter their environment to their own benefit, but throughout most of the surface ocean (comprising more than half of the globe), nutrient depletion by plankton has almost created a biological desert, and is kept in check only by the nutrient starvation of the plankton themselves. Lastly, where organisms enhance their environment for themselves, they create positive feedback; thus Gaia theory's two central principles – first, that organisms stabilize their environment, and second, that organisms alter their environment in ways that benefit them – are mutually inconsistent with one another. These examples suggest that the further development of Gaia theory will require more deliberate comparison of theory and data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Last Three Millions of Unequal Spring Thaws

Toward understanding Cretaceous climate—An updated review

The Mid-Pleistocene Transition: a delayed response to an increasing positive feedback?

Arens, N. C. and Jahren, A. H.: 2000, ‘Carbon Isotope Excursion in Atmospheric CO 2 at the Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary: Evidence from Terrestrial Sediments’, Palaios 15 , 314–322.

Google Scholar  

Charlson, R. J., Lovelock, J. E., Andreae, M. O., and Warren, S. G.: 1987, ‘Oceanic Phytoplankton, Atmospheric Sulphur, Cloud Albedo and Climate’, Nature 326 , 655–661.

Cox, P. M., Betts, R. A., Jones, C. D., Spall, S. A., and Totterdell, I. J.: 2000, ‘Acceleration of Global Warming Due to Carbon-cycle Feedbacks in a Coupled Climate Model’, Nature 408 , 184–187.

Goodnight, C. J. and Stevens, L.: 1997, ‘Experimental Studies of Group Selection: What Do They Tell Us about Group Selection in Nature?’, Amer. Nat. 150 , S59–S79.

Gorham, E.: 1991, ‘Biogeochemistry–its Origins and Development’, Biogeochemistry 13 , 199–239.

Hamilton, W. D.: 1995, ‘Ecology in the Large: Gaia and Ghengis Khan’, J. Appl. Ecol. 32 , 451–453.

Hardin, G.: 1968, ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science 162 , 1243–1248.

Hutchinson, G. E.: 1950, ‘Survey of Contemporary Knowledge of Biogeochemistry.-3. The Biogeochemistry of Vertebrate Excretion’, Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 96 , 1–553.

Hutchinson, G. E.: 1954, ‘The Biogeochemistry of the Terrestrial Atmosphere’, in Kuiper, G. P. (ed.), The Earth as a Planet , University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 371–433.

Jahren, A. H., Arens, N. C., Sarmiento, G., Guerrero, J., and Amundson, R.: 2001, ‘Terrestrial Record of Methane Hydrate Dissociation in the Early Cretaceous’, Geology 29 , 159–162.

Kamen, M. D.: 1946, ‘Survey of Existing Knowledge of Biogeochemistry. 1. Isotopic Phenomena in Biogeochemistry’, Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 87 , 110–138.

Kirchner, J. W.: 1989, ‘The Gaia Hypothesis: Can it Be Tested?’, Rev. Geophys. 27 , 223–235.

Kirchner, J. W.: 1990, ‘Gaia Metaphor Unfalsifiable’, Nature 345 , 470.

Kirchner, J. W.: 1991, ‘The Gaia Hypotheses: Are They Testable? Are They Useful?’, in Schneider, S. H. and Boston, P. J. (ed.), Scientists on Gaia , MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 38–46.

Kirchner, J. W.: 2002, ‘The Gaia Hypothesis: Fact, Theory, and Wishful Thinking’, Clim. Change 52 , 391–408.

Kirchner, J.W. and Roy, B. A.: 1999, ‘The Evolutionary Advantages of Dying Young: Epidemiological Implications of Longevity in Metapopulations’, Amer. Nat. 154 , 140–159.

Kleidon, A.: 2002, ‘Testing the Effect of Life on Earth's Functioning: How Gaian is the Earth System?’, Clim. Change 52 , 383–389.

Lashof, D. A.: 1989, ‘The Dynamic Greenhouse: Feedback Processes that May Influence Future Concentrations of Atmospheric Trace Gases in Climatic Change’, Clim. Change 14 , 213–242.

Lashof, D. A., DeAngelo, B. J., Saleska, S. R., and Harte, J.: 1997, ‘Terrestrial Ecosystem Feedbacks to Global Climate Change’, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 22 , 75–118.

Legrand, M., Feniet-Saigne, C., Saltzman, E. S., Germain, C., Barkov, N. I., and Petrov, V. N.: 1991, ‘Ice-core Record of Oceanic Emissions of Dimethylsulphide during the Last Climate Cycle’, Nature 350 , 144–146.

Legrand, M. R., Delmas, R. J., and Charlson, R. J.: 1988, ‘Climate Forcing Implications from Vostok Ice-core Sulphate Data’, Nature 334 , 418–420.

Lenton, T. M.: 1998, ‘Gaia and Natural Selection’, Nature 394 , 439–447.

Lenton, T. M.: 2001, ‘The Role of Land Plants, Phosphorus Weathering and Fire in the Rise and Regulation of Atmospheric Oxygen’, Global Change Biol. 7 , 613–629.

Lenton, T. M.: 2002, ‘Testing Gaia: The Effect of Life on Earth's Habitability and Regulation’, Clim. Change 52 , 409–422.

Lenton, T. M. and von Bloh, W.: 2001, ‘Biotic Feedback Extends the Life Span of the Biosphere’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28 , 1715–1718.

Lenton, T. M. and Watson, A. J.: 2000, ‘Redfield Revisited 1. Regulation of Nitrate, Phosphate, and Oxygen in the Ocean’, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 14 , 225–248.

Lenton, T. M. and Wilkinson, D. M.: 2003, ‘Developing the Gaia Theory: A Response to the Criticisms of Kirchner and Volk’, Clim. Change 58 , this issue.

Lovelock, J. E.: 1983, ‘Daisy World: A Cybernetic Proof of the Gaia Hypothesis’, Coevolution Quarterly 38 , 66–72.

Lovelock, J. E.: 1986, ‘Geophysiology: A New Look at Earth Science’, in Dickinson, R. E. (ed.), The Geophysiology of Amazonia: Vegetation and Climate Interactions , Wiley, New York, pp. 11–23.

Lovelock, J. E.: 1988, The Ages of Gaia , W. W. Norton, New York.

Lovelock, J. E.: 1990, ‘Hands Up for the Gaia Hypothesis’, Nature 344 , 100–102.

Lovelock, J. E.: 1991, Gaia–The Practical Science of Planetary Medicine , Gaia Books, London.

Lovelock, J. E.: 1995, The Ages of Gaia , W. W. Norton, New York.

Lovelock, J. E.: 2000, Homage to Gaia: The Life of an Independent Scientist , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lovelock, J. E. and Kump, L. R.: 1994, ‘Failure of Climate Regulation in a Geophysiological Model’, Nature 369 , 732–734.

Lovelock, J. E. and Margulis, L.: 1974, ‘Atmospheric Homeostasis by and for the Biosphere: The Gaia Hypothesis’, Tellus 26 , 2–9.

Lovelock, J. E. and Watson, A. J.: 1982, ‘The Regulation of Carbon Dioxide and Climate: Gaia or Geochemistry’, Planet. Space Sci. 30 , 795–802.

Malthus, T. R.: 1798, An Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers , J. Johnson, London.

Petit, J. R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N. I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davisk, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V. M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V. Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzmank, E., and Stievenard, M.: 1999, ‘Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica’, Nature 399 , 429–436.

Popper, K. R.: 1963, Conjectures and Refutations; The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Retallack, G. J.: 2002, ‘Carbon Dioxide and Climate over the Past 300 Myr’, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Series A 360 , 659–673.

Schimel, D. S., House, J. I., Hibbard, K. A., Bousquet, P., Ciais, P., Peylin, P., Braswell, B. H., Apps, M. J., Baker, D., Bondeau, A., Canadell, J., Churkina, G., Cramer, W., Denning, A. S., Field, C. B., Friedlingstein, P., Goodale, C., Heimann, M., Houghton, R. A., Melillo, J. M., Moore, B., Murdiyarso, D., Noble, I., Pacala, S. W., Prentice, I. C., Raupach, M. R., Rayner, P. J., Scholes, R. J., Steffen, W. L., and Wirth, C.: 2001, ‘Recent Patterns and Mechanisms of Carbon Exchange by Terrestrial Ecosystems’, Nature 414 , 169–172.

Schlesinger, W. H.: 1997, Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change , Academic Press, San Diego.

Schneider, S. H.: 2001, ‘A Goddess of Earth or the Imagination of a Man?’, Science 291 , 1906–1907.

Sober, E. and Wilson, D. S.: 1998, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior , Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Volk, T.: 1998, Gaia's Body: Toward a Physiology of Earth , Copernicus, New York.

Volk, T.: 2002, ‘Toward a Future for Gaia Theory’, Clim. Change 52 , 423–430.

Watson, A. J. and Liss, P. S.: 1998, ‘Marine Biological Controls on Climate Via the Carbon and Sulphur Geochemical Cycles’, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Series B 353 , 41–51.

Watson, A. J. and Lovelock, J. E.: 1983, ‘Biological Homeostasis of the Global Environment: The Parable of Daisyworld’, Tellus, Series B: Chem. Phys. Meterol. 35 , 284–289.

Woodwell, G. M., Mackenzie, F. T., Houghton, R. A., Apps, M., Gorham, E., and Davidson, E.: 1998, ‘Biotic Feedbacks in the Warming of the Earth’, Clim. Change 40 , 495–518.

Zachos, J., Pagani, M., Sloan, L., Thomas, E., and Billups, K.: 2001, ‘Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present’, Science 292 , 686–693.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 94720-4767, U.S.A.

James W. Kirchner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kirchner, J.W. The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations. Climatic Change 58 , 21–45 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023494111532

Download citation

Issue Date : May 2003

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023494111532

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Dimethyl Sulfide
• Anthropogenic Climate Change
• Nutrient Starvation
• Biological Feedback
• Ocean Uptake
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Gaia hypothesis

Students also viewed

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