FEATURE

Madrid
COVID-19
[email protected] Twitter

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n1656 on 8 July 2021. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 13 April 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.
@thackerpd
Cite this as: BMJ 2021;374:n1656 The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall victim to a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1656
Published: 8 July 2021 misinformation campaign?
The theory that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a lab was considered a debunked conspiracy
theory, but some experts are revisiting it amid calls for a new, more thorough investigation. Paul
Thacker explains the dramatic U turn and the role of contemporary science journalism
Paul D Thacker investigative journalist
For most of 2020, the notion that SARS-CoV-2 may Lentzos, codirector of the Centre for Science and
have originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, was treated Security Studies at King’s College, London, told the
as a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. Only Wall Street Journal, “Some of the scientists in this
conservative news media sympathetic to President area very quickly closed ranks.”3 She added, “There
Donald Trump and a few lonely reports dared suggest were people that did not talk about this, because they
otherwise. But that all changed in the early months feared for their careers. They feared for their grants.”
of 2021, and today most outlets across the political
Daszak had support. After he wrote an essay for the
spectrum agree: the “lab leak” scenario deserves
Guardian in June 2020 attacking the former head of
serious investigation.
MI6 for saying that the pandemic could have “started
Understanding this dramatic U turn on arguably the as an accident,” Jeremy Farrar, director of the
most important question for preventing a future Wellcome Trust and co-signer of the Lancet letter,
pandemic, and why it took nearly a year to happen, promoted Daszak’s essay on Twitter, saying that
involves understanding contemporary science Daszak was “always worth reading.”4
journalism.
Daszak’s behind-the-scenes role in orchestrating the
A conspiracy to label critics as conspiracy statement in the Lancet came to light in November
theorists 2020 in emails obtained through freedom of
information requests by the watchdog group US Right
Scientists and reporters contacted by The BMJ say To Know.
that objective consideration of covid-19’s origins went
awry early in the pandemic, as researchers who were “Please note that this statement will not have
funded to study viruses with pandemic potential EcoHealth Alliance logo on it and will not be
launched a campaign labelling the lab leak identifiable as coming from any one organization or
hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory.” person,” wrote Daszak in a February email, while
sending around a draft of the statement for
A leader in this campaign has been Peter Daszak, signatories.5 In another email, Daszak considered
president of EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit removing his name from the statement “so it has some
organisation given millions of dollars in grants by distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a
the US federal government to research viruses for counterproductive way.”6
pandemic preparedness.1 Over the years EcoHealth
Alliance has subcontracted out its federally supported Several of the 27 scientists who signed the letter
research to various scientists and groups, including Daszak circulated did so using other professional
around $600 000 (£434 000; €504 000) to the Wuhan affiliations and omitted reporting their ties to
Institute of Virology.1 EcoHealth Alliance.3

Shortly after the pandemic began, Daszak effectively For Richard Ebright, professor of molecular biology
silenced debate over the possibility of a lab leak with at Rutgers University in New Jersey and a biosafety
a February 2020 statement in the Lancet.2 “We stand expert, scientific journals were complicit in helping
together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories to shout down any mention of a lab leak. “That means
suggesting that covid-19 does not have a natural Nature, Science, and the Lancet,” he says. In recent
origin,” said the letter, which listed Daszak as one of months he and dozens of academics have signed
27 coauthors. Daszak did not respond to repeated several open letters rejecting conspiracy theory
requests for comment from The BMJ. accusations and calling for an open investigation of
the pandemic’s origins.7 -9
“It’s become a label you pin on something you don’t
agree with,” says Nicholas Wade, a science writer “It’s very clear at this time that the term ‘conspiracy
who has worked at Nature, Science, and the New York theory’ is a useful term for defaming an idea you
Times. “It’s ridiculous, because the lab escape disagree with,” says Ebright, referring to scientists
scenario invokes an accident, which is the opposite and journalists who have wielded the term. “They
of a conspiracy.” have been successful until recently in selling that
narrative to many in the media.”
But the effort to brand serious consideration of a lab
leak a “conspiracy theory” only ramped up. Filippa

the bmj | BMJ 2021;374:n1656 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1656 1

 FEATURE

The Lancet’s editor in chief, Richard Horton, did not respond to with the New York Times, Shi denied that her lab was ever involved
repeated requests for comment but, after The BMJ had sent him in “gain of function” experiments (box 1) that enhance a virus’s
questions, the Lancet expanded Daszak’s conflicts of interest on virulence. But the newspaper reported that her lab had been
the February statement and recused him from working on its task involved in experiments that altered the transmissibility of viruses,

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n1656 on 8 July 2021. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 13 April 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.
force looking into the pandemic’s origin.10 11 alongside interviews with scientists who said that far more
transparency was necessary to determine the truth of SARS-CoV-2’s
The Lancet letter ultimately helped to guide almost a year of
origins.17
reporting, as journalists helped to amplify Daszak’s message and
to silence scientific and public debate. “We’re in the midst of the Box 1: What is “gain of function” research?
social media misinformation age, and these rumours and conspiracy
theories have real consequences,” Daszak told Science.12 Months After two teams genetically tweaked the H5N1 avian flu virus in 2011 to
later in Nature, he again criticised “conspiracies” that the virus make it more transmissible in mammals, biosafety experts voiced
concerns about “gain of function” research—experimental research that
could have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and
involves altering microbes in ways that change their transmissibility,
complained about “politically motivated organisations” requesting pathogenicity, or host range.
his emails.13 In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2012, Lynn Klotz predicted an
That summer Scientific American, one of the oldest and best known 80% chance that a leak of a potential pandemic pathogen would occur
popular science magazines in America, published a complimentary sometime in the next 12 years. Two years later a Harvard epidemiologist,
Marc Lipsitch, founded the Cambridge Working Group to lobby against
profile of Daszak’s colleague, Shi Zhengli, a centre director at the
such experiments.
Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has been funded by EcoHealth
At that time, three safety lapses involving dangerous pathogens led to
Alliance.14
a safety crackdown at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology earned Lipsitch later argued in 2018 that the release of such a pathogen would
additional sympathetic reporting after the US National Institutes “lead to global spread of a virulent virus, a biosafety incident on a scale
of Health (NIH) cancelled its grant to EcoHealth Alliance in April never before seen.”
last year—allegedly on President Trump’s order—because of its ties Gain of function research was briefly paused because of these concerns,
although critics debate as to when it restarted. For more than a decade,
to Wuhan, a decision protested by 77 Nobel laureates and 31
scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have been discovering
scientific societies.15 (The NIH has subsequently awarded EcoHealth coronaviruses in bats in southern China and bringing them back to their
Alliance new funding.) lab for gain of function research, to learn how to deal with such a deadly
Efforts to characterise the lab leak scenario as unworthy of serious virus should it arise in nature.
consideration were far reaching, sometimes affecting reporting that The closest known relative of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was found in a region
had first appeared well before the covid-19 pandemic. For example, of China almost 1000 miles from the Wuhan Institute of Virology—yet the
pandemic apparently started in Wuhan. Biosafety experts have noted
in March 2020 Nature Medicine added an editor’s note (“Scientists
that lab leaks are common but rarely reported, as hundreds of lab
believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus”)
accidents had happened in the US alone.27
to a 2015 paper on the creation of a hybrid version of a SARS virus,
co-written by Shi.16
Two major events are probably responsible for the media’s change
Wade explains, “Science journalists differ a lot from other journalists in tune. First, Trump was no longer president. Because Trump had
in that they are far less sceptical of their sources and they see their said that the virus could have come from a Wuhan lab, Daszak and
main role as simply to explain science to the public.” This, he says, others used him as a convenient foil to attack their critics. But the
is why they began marching in unison behind Daszak. framing of the lab leak hypothesis as a partisan issue was harder
to sustain after Trump left the White House.
The U turn
Second, after months of negotiation the Chinese government finally
By the end of 2020, just a handful of journalists had dared to allowed the World Health Organization to come to Wuhan and
seriously discuss the possibility of a lab leak. In September, Boston investigate the pandemic’s origin. But in January 2021 WHO, which
magazine reported on a preprint that found the virus unlikely to included Daszak on the team, returned with no evidence that the
have come from the Wuhan seafood market, as Daszak has argued, virus had arisen through natural spill-over.18 More worryingly,
and that it seemed too well adapted to humans to have arisen members were allowed only a few hours of supervised access to the
naturally. However, the story failed to garner much attention, Wuhan Institute of Virology.
similarly to a little noticed investigative report by the Associated
Press in December that exposed how the Chinese government was The White House then released a statement making clear that it did
clamping down on research into covid-19’s origins. not trust China’s propaganda denying that the virus could have
come from one of the country’s labs. “We have deep concerns about
In January this year, New York magazine ran a sprawling story the way in which the early findings of the covid-19 investigation
detailing how the pandemic could have started with a leak from the were communicated and questions about the process used to reach
lab in Wuhan. The hypothetical scenario: “SARS-CoV-2, the virus them,” said the statement. “It is imperative that this report be
that causes covid-19, began its existence inside a bat, then it learned independent, with expert findings free from intervention or
how to infect people in a claustrophobic mine shaft, and then it was alteration by the Chinese government.”
made more infectious in one or more laboratories, perhaps as part
of a scientist’s well-intentioned but risky effort to create a The following month the Washington Post editorial board called for
broad-spectrum vaccine.” Scientists and their media allies swiftly an open and transparent investigation of the virus’s origins,
criticised the article. highlighting Shi’s experiments with bat coronaviruses that were
genetically very similar to the one that caused the pandemic.19 It
But mainstream outlets from the New York Times to the Washington asked, “Could a worker have gotten infected or inadvertent leakage
Post are now treating the lab leak hypothesis as a worthy question, have touched off the outbreak in Wuhan?” The Wall Street Journal,
one to be answered with a serious investigation. In a recent interview citing a US intelligence document, recently reported that three

2 the bmj | BMJ 2021;374:n1656 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1656

 FEATURE

Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers were admitted to hospital Whether a credible investigation will be made into the lab leak
in November 2019.20 scenario remains to be seen. WHO and the Lancet both launched
investigations last year (box 2), but Daszak was involved in both,
To follow any US financial ties and to better understand how the
and neither has made significant progress.

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n1656 on 8 July 2021. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 13 April 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.
pandemic started, Republicans have launched investigations of
government agencies that fund coronavirus research, and one Box 2: Timeline
investigative committee has sent a letter to Daszak at EcoHealth
2019
Alliance demanding that he turn over documents. Meanwhile,
Senate Republicans and Democrats have started to discuss an September Weeks before the pandemic erupts, Jeremy Farrar (Wellcome
Trust) and Anthony Fauci (US National Institutes of Health; NIH) help
independent investigation of the virus’s origins.
oversee a World Health Organization report highlighting an “increasing
A hard truth to swallow risk of global pandemic from a pathogen escaping after being engineered
in a lab”
The growing tendency to treat the lab leak scenario as worthy of November Three researchers from the Wuhan Institute of Virology are
serious investigation has put some reporters on the defensive. After admitted to hospital, says a previously undisclosed US intelligence
Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control document reported by the Wall Street Journal on 23 May 2021
and Prevention, appeared on CNN in March, Scientific American’s 31 December WHO is notified of cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology
editor in chief, Laura Helmuth, tweeted, “On CNN, former CDC in Wuhan City
director Robert Redfield shared the conspiracy theory that the virus 2020
came from the Wuhan lab.” The following day, Scientific American 1 February Jeremy Farrar holds a teleconference with Anthony Fauci and
ran an essay calling the lab leak theory “evidence free.” And a week others to discuss the outbreak’s origins
later a Nature reporter, Amy Maxmen, labelled the idea that the 6 February A commentary from Chinese researchers based in Wuhan,
virus could have leaked from a lab as “conjecture.” arguing that “the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory
in Wuhan,” is posted and later removed from ResearchGate (the user
Helmuth did not respond to questions from The BMJ. account “Botao Xiao” is also deleted)
Some media outlets have attempted to justify their past reporting 19 February An open letter is published in the Lancet from 27 scientists
including Peter Daszak and Jeremy Farrar, who “strongly condemn
about the lab leak hypothesis as simply a matter of tracking a
conspiracy theories suggesting that covid-19 does not have a natural
“scientific consensus” which, they say, has now changed. Vox origin”
posted an erratum noting, “Since this piece was originally published
19 FebruaryScience magazine reports: “Scientists ‘strongly condemn’
in March 2020, scientific consensus has shifted.” rumors and conspiracy theories about origin of coronavirus outbreak,”
The “scientific consensus” argument does not sit well with David quoting Daszak as saying, “We’re in the midst of the social media
Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University, California. “We misinformation age, and these rumors and conspiracy theories have real
consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our
can’t even begin to talk about a consensus other than a consensus
colleagues in China.”
that we don’t know [the origins of SARS-CoV-2],” he recently told
22 FebruaryNew York Post publishes an article by a China scholar arguing
the Washington Post.21 that “coronavirus may have leaked from a lab”—subsequently censored
A year lost by Facebook
6 March Kristian Andersen (Scripps Research Institute) thanks Jeremy
While the narrative took months to change in the media, several Farrar (Wellcome), Anthony Fauci (NIH), and Francis Collins (NIH) “for
high profile intelligence sources had treated the lab leak theory your advice and leadership as we have been working through the
seriously from early on. In April 2020, Avril Haines joined two other SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper.” The paper is published on 17 March in Nature
former deputy directors of the Central Intelligence Agency to write Medicine and states, “Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not
an essay in Foreign Policy asking, “To what extent did the Chinese a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
government misrepresent the scope and scale of the epidemic?”22 24 April NIH abruptly cuts funding to EcoHealth Alliance, allegedly on
A week later, one of the former intelligence officials who wrote that President Trump’s order
essay gave similar quotes to Politico. 28 April Three former US intelligence agents write in Foreign Policy asking
whether the virus emerged from nature or escaped from a Chinese lab
Ignoring these early warnings led to a year of biased, failed 21 MayNew York Times depicts the Wuhan Institute of Virology as a victim
reporting, says Wade. “They didn’t question what their sources of “conspiracy theories”
were saying,” he says of the reporters who helped to sell the 27 MayNature reports the lab leak hypothesis as “coronavirus
conspiracy theory narrative to the public. “That is the simple misinformation” and “false information”
explanation for this phenomenon.” 8 June The science magazine Undark reports that the lab leak is a
conspiracy theory “that’s been broadly discredited”
An impartial, credible investigation?
30 December Associated Press investigation finds documents from March
As the news media scramble to correct and reflect on what went 2020 showing how Beijing has shaped and censored research into the
wrong with nearly a year of reporting, the episode has also origins of SARS-CoV-2
highlighted quality control issues at the ubiquitous “fact checking” 2021
services. February Facebook places warning on an article by Ian Birrell about the
origins of covid-19. Facebook says that these warnings reduce article
Prominent outlets such as PolitiFact23 and FactCheck.org24 have viewership by 95%
added editor’s notes to pieces that previously “debunked” the idea 13 February Jake Sullivan, US national security adviser, expresses “deep
that the virus was created in a lab or could have been concerns” about WHO’s covid-19 investigation, calling on China to be
bioengineered—softening their position to one of an open question more transparent
that is “in dispute.” For almost a year Facebook sought to control MarchWashington Post calls for serious investigations of the lab leak
misinformation by banning stories suggesting that the coronavirus hypothesis
was man made. After renewed interest in the virus’s origin, Facebook 30 March WHO releases a report on its investigation into the origins of
lifted the ban.25 covid-19, listing the lab leak as least likely of the possible scenarios

the bmj | BMJ 2021;374:n1656 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1656 3

 FEATURE

considered. Hours earlier, WHO’s director general, Tedros Adhanom 19 Opinion: The WHO needs to start over in investigating the origins of the coronavirus. Washington
Ghebreyesus, acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis should “remain Post 2021 Mar 6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-who-needs-
on the table” and called for a more extensive probe to-start-over-in-investigating-the-origins-of-the-coronavirus/2021/03/05/6f3d5a0e-7de9-11eb-
a976-c028a4215c78_story.html

BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.n1656 on 8 July 2021. Downloaded from http://www.bmj.com/ on 13 April 2024 by guest. Protected by copyright.
30 March The US, Australian, Japanese, Canadian, UK, and other 20 Gordon MR, Strobel WP, Hinshaw D. Intelligence on sick staff at Wuhan lab fuels debate on
governments express concern over WHO’s investigation and call for covid-19 origin. Wall Street J 2021 May 23. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-
“transparent and independent analysis and evaluation, free from staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228
interference and undue influence” 21 Dou E, Kuo L. A scientist adventurer and China’s “Bat Woman” are under scrutiny as coronavirus
26 May Facebook lifts its ban on posts referencing the lab leak hypothesis lab-leak theory gets another look. Washington Post 2021 Jun 3. https://www.washington-
post.com/world/asia_pacific/coronavirus-bats-china-wuhan/2021/06/02/772ef984-beb2-11eb-
922a-c40c9774bc48_story.html
In recent weeks, several high profile scientists who once denigrated
22 Morell M, Haines A, Cohen DS. Trump’s politicization of US intelligence agencies could end in
the idea that the virus could have come from a lab have made small disaster. Foreign Policy 2020 Apr 28. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/28/trump-cia-intimida-
steps into demanding an open investigation of the pandemic’s tion-politicization-us-intelligence-agencies-could-end-in-disaster/
origin. 23 Archived fact-check: Tucker Carlson guest airs debunked conspiracy theory that covid-19 was
created in a lab. PolitiFact 2021 May 17. https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/
The NIH’s director, Francis Collins, said in a recent interview, “The 24 Fichera A. Report resurrects baseless claim that coronavirus was bioengineered. FactCheck.org.
Chinese government should be on notice that we have to have 17 Sep 2020. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/report-resurrects-baseless-claim-that-coron-
answers to questions that have not been answered about those avirus-was-bioengineered/
people who got sick in November who worked in the lab and about 25 Lima C. Facebook no longer treating “man-made” covid as a crackpot idea. Politico 2021 May
those lab notebooks that have not been examined.” He added, “If 26. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/facebook-ban-covid-man-made-491053
26 Trump administration’s hunt for pandemic “lab leak” went down many paths and came up with
they really want to be exonerated from this claim of culpability,
no smoking gun. Washington Post 2021 Jun 15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-secu-
then they have got to be transparent.”26 rity/us-intelligence-wuhan-lab-coronavirus-origin/2021/06/15/2fc2425e-ca24-11eb-afd0-
9726f7ec0ba6_story.html
But the nature of this investigation has still not been decided.
27 Young A. Could an accident have caused covid-19? Why the Wuhan lab-leak theory shouldn’t
be dismissed. USA Today 2021 Mar 22. https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/opin-
Competing interests: I am paid by various media outlets for journalism stories and consult part time ion/2021/03/22/why-covid-lab-leak-theory-wuhan-shouldnt-dismissed-column/4765985001/
for a non-profit institute focused on brain disorders. I run a newsletter called the Disinformation Chronicle.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned, not externally peer reviewed. This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for
the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download
1 USA Spending. Project Grant FAIN R01AI110964. https://www.usaspend- and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided
ing.gov/award/ASST_NON_R01AI110964_7529 that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
2 Calisher C, Carroll D, Colwell R, etal. Statement in support of the scientists, public health
professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19. Lancet 2020;395:e42-3.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30418-9. pmid: 32087122
3 O’Neal A. A scientist who said no to covid groupthink. Wall Street J 2021 Jun 11.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-scientist-who-said-no-to-covid-groupthink-11623430659
4 Farrar J. Twitter. 9 Jun 2020. https://twitter.com/JeremyFarrar/status/1270354946295246848
5 Daszak P. Email. 6 Feb 2020. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/up-
loads/2020/11/The_Lancet_Emails_Daszak-2.6.20.pdf
6 Baric R. Email. 6 Feb 2020. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Baric_Daszak_email.pdf
7 Gorman J. Some scientists question W.H.O. inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic’s origins. New
York Times 2021 Mar 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/health/covid-virus-origins.html
8 Calls for further inquiries into coronavirus origins. New York Times 2021 Apr 7. https://www.ny-
times.com/interactive/2021/04/07/science/virus-inquiries-pandemic-origins.html?referring-
Source=articleShare
9 Bloom JD, Chan YA, Baric RS, etal. Investigate the origins of COVID-19. Science
2021;372:694doi:10.1126/science.abj0016 . https://science.sciencemag.org/con-
tent/372/6543/694.1.pmid: 33986172
10 Addendum: competing interests and the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Lancet 2021;397:2449-50.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01377-5/full-
textdoi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01377-5.
11 Lancet Covid-19 Commission. Origins, early spread of the pandemic, and one health solutions
to future pandemic threats. https://covid19commission.org/origins-of-the-pandemic
12 Cohen J. Scientists “strongly condemn” rumors and conspiracy theories about origin of coronavirus
outbreak. Science 2020. doi: 10.1126/science.abb3730.
13 Subbaraman N. ‘Heinous!’: Coronavirus researcher shut down for Wuhan-lab link slams new
funding restrictions. Nature 2020. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02473-4. pmid: 32826989
14 Qiu J. How China’s “Bat Woman” hunted down viruses from SARS to the new coronavirus.
Scientific American 2020 Jun 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-
woman-hunted-down-viruses-from-sars-to-the-new-coronavirus1/
15 Nobel laureates and science groups demand NIH review decision to kill coronavirus grant. Science
2020 May 21. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/preposterous-77-nobel-laureates-
blast-nih-decision-cancel-coronavirus-grant-demand
16 Menachery VD, Yount BL, JrDebbink K, etal. A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses
shows potential for human emergence. Nat Med 2015;21:1508-13. doi: 10.1038/nm.3985.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm.3985. pmid: 26552008
17 A top virologist in China, at center of a pandemic storm, speaks out. New York Times 2021 Jun
15. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/world/asia/china-covid-wuhan-lab-leak.html
18 World Health Organization. Mission summary: WHO field visit to Wuhan, China 20-21 January
2020. 22 Jan 2020. https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-china-
jan-2020

4 the bmj | BMJ 2021;374:n1656 | doi: 10.1136/bmj.n1656