In the debate over gain-of-function (GoF) research, few entities draw as much scrutiny as EcoHealth Alliance. Now, as federal investigations intensify and pandemic-era research funding comes under the microscope, one of the loudest critics of NIH oversight is a former insider: a scientist who once worked on controversial NIH-funded coronavirus experiments with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Dr. Noam Ross, formerly a computational disease ecologist at EcoHealth Alliance, now serves as executive director of rOpenSci and co-leads a project called Grant Witness (formerly Grant Watch). The initiative tracks NIH and NSF research grants that are reduced or terminated, often highlighting NIH decisions in critical or adversarial tones. Grant Witness describes itself as a transparency effort – but its leadership and editorial posture have raised questions about motives, bias, and influence.
Ross worked at EcoHealth during a period when the organization received NIH funding to study bat coronaviruses in China. According to public records, this research involved collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Although EcoHealth Alliance has repeatedly denied that the work constituted gain-of-function research – defined narrowly by the Department of Health and Human Services as work that enhances the transmissibility or virulence of viruses capable of infecting humans – questions remain. In a 2021 NIH letter to Rep. James Comer, officials confirmed that a limited bat-coronavirus experiment at WIV produced unusually severe disease in mice – a result EcoHealth failed to report promptly. Although the letter avoided labeling it as “gain-of-function,” the results suggested to critics that this was a distinction without a difference.
EcoHealths NIH grant was initially suspended in 2020 under the Trump administration, reinstated with restrictions in 2021, and ultimately terminated and followed by formal debarment in 2024.
Now, Ross is a central figure in a public campaign challenging those who are scrutinizing the very type of research performed by his previous employer. In a June 2025 post on Bluesky, Ross wrote that NIH had used an “excuse to kill all manner of virology programs,” citing its decision to terminate a suite of research grants. The post gained traction among scientists and public health advocates – many of whom were unaware of Ross own history with NIH-funded virology work.
Ross writes blog posts, organizes outreach campaigns, and has become a key voice in resisting what he and other critics describe as politically driven interference in science. Grant Witness features posts defending terminated grants, connecting researchers with journalists, and raising alarm about what it describes as a lack of due process in NIH funding decisions.
Several of the projects promoted by Grant Witness reflect EcoHealths former research profile – studies of zoonotic risk, bat coronaviruses, and indirect NIH funding mechanisms Some critics say this creates the appearance of a conflict of interest – if not an intentional campaign to shield similar work from scrutiny. Others view Ross efforts as a public service: a defense of scientific freedom in the face of political pressure.
Ross career was shaped by the same opaque NIH structures he now challenges. Today, he is actively shaping a media narrative that frames funding cuts as censorship and anti-science. The line between whistleblowing and policy advocacy has grown increasingly blurry.
Federal action around GoF research has shifted dramatically across administrations. The Obama administration imposed a moratorium on GoF studies involving influenza, SARS, and MERS in 2014, an action outlined in the official White House policy guidance. The Trump administration lifted that pause in 2017, introducing the P3CO framework requiring additional safety review – but left its enforcement to NIH discretion.
Under the Biden administration, EcoHealths grant was reinstated in 2021, then suspended again in 2024. In May 2025, the White House issued a new biosafety directive requiring heightened transparency for all pathogen research funded by NIH.
Congressional Republicans have kept up pressure. Sen. Rand Paul, who has accused Anthony Fauci and NIH of misleading the public, has repeatedly demanded accountability. “The research conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology failed to undergo review by any safety committee, likely causing a lab leak,” Paul said. In 2025, he renewed calls for a criminal referral of Fauci, adding: “Perjury is a crime. And Fauci must be held accountable.”
Rep. Comer, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, has also been vocal. “EcoHealth conducted gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, knew about the Chinese Communist Partys coverup, and failed to inform the U.S. government,” he said in 2022. In 2024, following HHS formal debarment of EcoHealth, Comer declared: “Bad actor EcoHealth Alliance and its corrupt former President … were formally debarred by HHS for using taxpayer funds to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in China.”
Ross and Grant Witness have not publicly addressed these criticisms directly – but their efforts have helped to shape public response to them.
Requests for comment sent to Dr. Ross, the National Institutes of Health, Sen. Rand Paul, and Rep. James Comer were not returned.
Adair Teuton is a 2025 intern with RealClearPolitics.
