Why can’t we agree on the (non)existence of biolabs in Ukraine?
The nature of infectious disease research at a Ukrainian lab is in question following Russia’s statement that the US funded biological weapons labs in Ukraine.
The bottom line: To some, any lab that studies dangerous viruses either is or could easily be turned into a biological weapons lab. To others, studying dangerous viruses can help us prepare for the next pandemic and can’t be equated to bioweapon research.
Below, we break down how different people are interpreting this story, and what values or information inform this perspective. Our goal isn’t to change your mind — it’s to show how rational people can understand this same story so differently.
NOTE: THIS ANALYSIS PRESENTS TWO OPPOSING PERSPECTIVES AS EXAMPLES FOR HOW PEOPLE MAY REACH DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC. YOUR VIEW MAY DIFFER, AND THAT’S OKAY.
What does each side see as fact?
- Studying deadly viruses helps us prepare for the next pandemic.
- The government should fund labs that study deadly viruses so we can be prepared.
- Any lab that studies deadly viruses has the potential to be compromised, and the viruses used as biological weapons.
- The government should be transparent and truthful about funding biolabs that study deadly viruses so we can make sure they aren’t putting citizens at risk.
The Narrative
To the left, there are no US-funded biological weapons labs in Ukraine. Studying dangerous viruses to advance science and medicine is not the same as creating biological weapons.
Claims that there are US-funded biological weapons in Ukraine play into the Russian narrative that the US is just as bad as they are. Russia could use this narrative to try to cover up its own use of chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine.
To the right, the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine contain viruses that could be used as biological weapons, and it’s dangerous to pretend otherwise.
It won’t matter what our intentions for these labs are if Russia captures them and uses dangerous viruses during war. It was irresponsible for the government to fund this research and not own up to it.
What does each side see as fact?
To the left…
- Studying deadly viruses helps us prepare for the next pandemic.
- The government should fund labs that study deadly viruses so we can be prepared.
To the right…
- Any lab that studies deadly viruses has the potential to be compromised, and the viruses used as biological weapons.
- The government should be transparent and truthful about funding biolabs that study deadly viruses so we can make sure they aren’t putting citizens at risk.
The Narrative
To the left, there are no US-funded biological weapons labs in Ukraine. Studying dangerous viruses to advance science and medicine is not the same as creating biological weapons.
Claims that there are US-funded biological weapons in Ukraine play into the Russian narrative that the US is just as bad as they are. Russia could use this narrative to try to cover up its own use of chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine.
To the right, the US-funded biolabs in Ukraine contain viruses that could be used as biological weapons, and it’s dangerous to pretend otherwise.
It won’t matter what our intentions for these labs are if Russia captures them and uses dangerous viruses during war. It was irresponsible for the government to fund this research and not own up to it.
How could a reasonable person come to think this?
There are a few things being muddled in this story that leads us to make different assumptions about what’s going on:
Should all labs that study dangerous viruses be considered a biological weapons labs?
To the left, it’s important to study these viruses to be prepared for the next pandemic — and this goal makes the research distinct from bioweapons research. The risk of viruses escaping from these labs is miniscule because there are systems in place to secure research samples and destroy them if needed.
To the right, the risks of studying these viruses might outweigh the benefits — because countries like Russia and China could get their hands on them. There is a significant possibility that COVID-19 escaped from a lab, so it’s not conspiratorial to believe that it could happen again.
Should the government fund labs that study dangerous viruses?
To the left, studying dangerous viruses helps us prepare for the next pandemic. Without ongoing infectious disease research, we probably wouldn’t have been able to develop a COVID-19 vaccine and treatments so quickly.
To the right, the government shouldn’t fund (and therefore possess) labs that study dangerous viruses — or at least maintain transparency about it — because of their potential to be used as biological weapons.
Does talking about these labs play into harmful Russian narratives about the US?
To the left, referring to these labs as biological weapons labs — instead of more accurately describing them as infectious disease labs — legitimizes the idea that the US would use biological weapons. If Russia plans to use a biological weapon, they will try to pin it on us, and people who parroted lines about US-funded biological weapons labs are creating an environment where people might believe Russia’s lies.
To the right, it’s harmful to try to cover for the US government’s reckless actions. Our government shouldn’t tell people half-truths — they should admit to the research they fund and own the consequences. Pretending that there is no security risk in funding these projects is disingenuous at best, and a potential war crime at worst.
These questions are rooted in opinion, not fact, and our answers to them will dramatically change how we tell this story. For example:
- If you believe that all government-funded labs that study dangerous viruses are biological weapons labs because the government then has access to viruses that could be used as biological weapons, then the US government is obviously funding biological weapons labs.
- If you believe that it’s important to study dangerous viruses to help combat the next pandemic, then labs studying these viruses are obviously not weapons labs, but a life-saving, useful scientific contribution.
- If you don’t see these labs as inherently dangerous, but as helpful scientific contributions, you might still be nervous that Russia could take over such a lab if it exists in Ukraine and use a dangerous virus as a biological weapon.