前美国国家过敏症和传染病研究所主任安东尼·福奇于周三在美国参议院接受共和党议员的质询[1][2]。参议员兰德·保罗主导的这场听证会将重点审查新冠病毒是否源自"实验室泄漏"[2][3]。保罗公开了超过1000页的福奇个人日记，声称其中内容与他的公开表态存在差异，并指控福奇关于美国国立卫生研究院资助的功能获得性研究撒谎[1]。保罗表示："多年来，美国人被告知实验室起源不仅不可能——而且被资助和审查这项研究的人完全否定"[3]。
现年85岁的福奇曾在38年间领导美国国家过敏症和传染病研究所，于2022年退休[3]。他曾担任唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登两届政府关于新冠疫情的关键顾问[2][3]。福奇及150多名传染病专家和科学家否认了这些指控，称没有新的科学证据支持实验室泄漏论[1]。福奇强调"在分子上不可能"让蝙蝠病毒实验演变成大流行病毒[1]。美国国立卫生研究院曾向生态卫生联盟提供资助，用于与中国武汉实验室合作研究蝙蝠冠状病毒[1]。白宫在2025年4月发表了关于"实验室泄漏"理论的论文，作为削减国家卫生研究院经费的理由[3]。
Former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci faced a Senate hearing led by Republican Senator Rand Paul to address questions about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.[1][2] Paul summoned Fauci to testify before a Republican-led committee investigating whether the coronavirus emerged from a laboratory leak, part of a broader GOP inquiry into pandemic origins and taxpayer-funded life sciences research.[2][3]
Paul released over 1,000 pages of Fauci's personal diaries during the pandemic, claiming that the former official's private records contradicted his public statements.[1] The senator accused Fauci of lying about National Institutes of Health funding for gain-of-function research, stating that "for years, Americans were told the lab origin was not only impossible—but was completely denied by those who funded and oversaw this research."[3] Paul's investigation also examined NIH grants provided to EcoHealth Alliance for collaborative research on bat coronaviruses with China's Wuhan laboratory.[1]
Fauci and more than 150 infectious disease specialists and scientists rejected these allegations, asserting that no new scientific evidence supports the laboratory leak theory.[1] Fauci emphasized that it was "molecularly impossible" for a bat virus experiment to evolve into a pandemic pathogen.[1] While Fauci previously stated he remained open to both natural origin and lab leak theories, he noted that more evidence supports a natural viral origin.[1] The White House released a paper in April 2025 backing the laboratory leak theory as justification for cutting NIH funding.[3]