The brouhaha du jour seems to revolve around Ukrainian bioweapons lab. The kick-off for that was Russian President Putin’s claim that the U. S. had bioweapons labs in Ukraine. What ensued was an increasingly partisan and acerbic argument by sophistry.
The retort to the claim was that the U. S. was funding defensive bioweapons research in Ukraine. That neatly sidesteps the more important question: should we be funding Ukrainians to maintain stocks of anthrax and other pathogens for any purpose whatever?
Perhaps it’s my paranoia speaking but I hear echoes of the Wuhan Institute of Virology in this. In my opinion evading U. S. regulation and oversight by doing research in other countries should be strictly banned with really draconian penalties for violations. Whether COVID-19 emerged from a lab leak or evolved neatly avoids the question of whether we should have been funding research in the WIV at all. I think the risks in such research are too great.
Even Gabbards clarified that they are not bioweapons labs. Which US regulations were avoided? Do you think we should not study viral pathogens at all?
Steve
I think we should do it within the United States, under strict controls that can be monitored. If there’s a ban on specific types of research, we shouldn’t do it at all. What do you think?
I think before we start talking about banned research we should find out what is banned and what was being done in Ukraine rather than guess. Also, to be honest, I think it is a bad idea to have the study of all pathogens done in the US. Too much risk of groupthink. Not really sure we can stop other countries anyway. So the better question is if another country is going to do the research are we better off helping make sure they can do it safely or just ignore them?
Steve
I think it’s more important to decide whether funding Ukraine to stockpile anthrax is in our national interest regardless of bans or what it’s being used for. “Not sure we can stop other countries” is a non sequitur. The question is whether we should fund it.
We have zero ability to ensure anything done in any other country is done safely or not. You can pretty much guarantee they’ll say anything to get the funding.
We know they were stockpiling anthrax?
I don’t know. We don’t know. We do know we were funding a couple of score facilities and some of them had Level 2 biosafety. Anthrax can be handled in facilities with Level 3 (lower) biosafety.
Here’s what our embassy in Ukraine has to say.
Article in MailOnline
It’s really hard to find even marginally reliable sources these days. Everything from everybody seems to be disinformation.
The official White House spin was first 1) we were assisting in researching cures to various maladies and then they changed it to 2) we were cleaning up old Russian biolabs………….for 17 years and counting, and despite seeing Putin coming a mile away, we didn’t hurry it up. Silly.
Throwing sand in the eyes by questioning the exact agents being studied is also silliness. The issue is the venue. Of course, I’ve been thinking we should study mass casualty contagions in Afghanistan, or maybe Burundi. Where it will be safe…….. Yeah. That’s it.
“I don’t know. We don’t know. ”
So you have no idea what they were doing but are willing to make all kinds of accusations and pronouncements. Just like tweedle dum in the following post. I would suggest waiting until there is further info. (That said the damage is already done. There is now no way to prove they dont do they stuff of which you have accused them.)
Below is a list of papers published jointly by the US and Ukraine from these facilities from your link. Hantavirus is endemic there. I am sure you realize it can be deadly. Seems like they ought to have some labs capable of handling it. Anthrax is endemic there. Really so odd that they should have labs capable of handling it?
Steve
 “Risk Assessment of Selected Avian EDPs Potentially Carried by Migratory Birds over Ukraineâ€
“Prevalence of Crimean Congo hemorrhagic fever virus and hantaviruses in Ukraine and the potential requirement for differential diagnosis of suspect leptospirosis patientsâ€
  “The Spread of African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) in Domestic Pigs and Wild Boars in Ukraine – Building Capacityfor Insight into the Transmission of ASFV through Characterization of Virus Isolates by Genome Sequencing and Phylogenetic Analysisâ€
https://www.ujecology.com/articles/monitoring-epizootic-situation-on-anthrax-in-ukraine-19202019.pdf
And you know with complete certitude that was the extent of what they did in those facilities? How?
I think that the Russian government, the Ukrainian government, and the U. S. government would not hesitate to lie and falsify if it served their purpose. Besides lifetime experience I know that because of the number of times our own government has lied over the years, particularly the last couple of years.
We’re not going to get a complete, fully independent audit of what those facilities were doing in the midst of a war. Consequently, I think the prudent thing to do is assume the worst.
“And you know with complete certitude that was the extent of what they did in those facilities? How?”
Uhh, I am the one who said we dont know. However, I do know that in a country where serious viral pathogens are endemic you need some way to study and track them. You need to know if they are mutating or if they are coming from a new source. That means you need to have labs capable of high level isolation. The kind that can contain anthrax. So I would fully expect Ukraine to have labs with that capability.
Prudent? Spreading stories when you have no idea if they are true is prudent? Has our government lied at times? Yes? What about the sources spreading this story? Russia, the right wing radicals supporting Putin. Have they lied? Yes. So you have two sides who have lied in the past and both sides could have motivation to do so again, but at least the explanation that the labs were needed to monitor pathogens make sense. I dont see how prudence leads you to support one group who could be lying vs another. In my mind prudence means you take neither side or you at least acknowledge that having bio-labs with containment ability makes sense and you should expect to see them there. That because they need to maintain stocks of potentially dangerous viruses they are a problem.
Steve
You don’t mitigate risks by only considering best case scenarios.
You can mitigate risks by assuming realistic scenarios. They probably have a number of pathogens that they should have in these labs. Stuff that is endemic to the country, like hantavirus and anthrax. That is good enough reason to want to shut them down and remove their contents. You dont need to make assumptions about their contents.
Steve