Russia’s Biolab Accusations Have Come Home

U.S.NewsPoliticsAI PoliticsTechFact CheckSportsGlobalIran WarRussia-UkraineMiddle EastChina And AsiaLive BlogBetter PlanetAll World NewsLifestyleFamily & ParentingEntertainmentTravelPetsAutomotiveRelationshipsScienceHealthPersonal FinanceBetter WorkplacesReaders ChoiceOpinionMy TurnAll OpinionRankingsHealthCorporate ResponsibilityFinanceProductsEducationWorkAll RankingsWatchThe 1600The Royal ReportUnconventionalFrom The PaddockNewsmakersSocialFacebookInstagramYouTubeRedditTikTokTwitter/XExtraNewslettersDare to DreamEventsEssaysPodcastsVantageInsightsMagazineCEO CircleAnnouncementsLeadershipDev Pragad In May 2022, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, had a tricky question for Washington and Kyiv. If biological laboratories operating in Ukraine with Pentagon support were engaged in peaceful scientific research, "why do you not agree to put it under international control?" he asked. Before Nebenzya took to the microphone, Moscow had alleged that at least 30 Ukrainian labs funded by Washington were conducting dangerous military-biological research involving pathogens including plague, anthrax, tularemia and cholera. It demanded exhaustive explanations, invoked the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and even attempted to establish a Security Council commission to investigate American and Ukrainian activities. Four years on, the tables have turned. An unexplained death at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute has attracted international attention to a facility with dangerous pathogen collections, a Soviet biological-defense history, and links to Russian military researchers. Moscow denies there was ever a plague infection or a laboratory accident in the first place, but has yet to reveal its findings to the world despite widespread calls—including from the World Health Organization and the White House—to do so. By the standards Nebenzya has set for Ukraine and the U.S., Russia is failing its own test on biological security. Politics and Pathogens On October 2, 28-year-old Darya Shipilova, an employee at the Irkutsk institute, reportedly died after developing severe pneumonia in late September. Various Russian media reports alleged she contracted pneumonic plague after breaking a test tube containing a strain of Yersinia pestis—the bacterium associated with the plague—which the facility in Irkutsk openly acknowledges it uses in research. But Russia’s public health watchdog Rospotrebnadzor claims Shipilova’s illness was completely unrelated to her work. On October 8, it announced that everyone who came into contact with the unfortunate lab worker had undergone medical observation, and no dangerous pathogens were found after almost 5,000 tests. Two investigative commissions reportedly found no biological-safety incident. So far, all we have to go on is Moscow’s word. "We don’t yet have the full picture of this event," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday. "We are not able to conduct a full risk assessment." Take one look at the history of the institute in Irkutsk and the scope of its work, and you can understand why the international community may be concerned. (function(){function e(){window.addEventListener(`message`,function(e){if(e.data[`datawrapper-height`]!==void 0){var t=document.querySelectorAll(`iframe`);for(var n in e.data[`datawrapper-height`])for(var r=0,i;i=t[r];r++)if(i.contentWindow===e.source){var a=e.data[`datawrapper-height`][n]+`px`;i.style.height=a}}})}e()})(); Founded in 1934, the Irkutsk institute has spent nearly a century studying some of the world’s deadliest infectious diseases. Its former director Igor Domaradsky, who took charge in 1957, described in his memoir Biowarrior how he established new laboratories at Irkutsk to study plague's effects on the body, including what he called the "mechanism of plague toxicity." After leaving the institute, Domaradsky went on to become a key architect of Factor, a Soviet biological-weapons program which sought to genetically engineer more virulent, dangerous microorganisms. Irkutsk, meanwhile, participated in the Soviet antiplague network’s secret Problem 5 biodefense program, though renowned U.S. biological weapons historian Raymond Zilinskas found its involvement in offensive weapons programs was relatively limited compared with other Soviet institutes. Today, Irkutsk continues to conduct biological-security and counter-bioterrorism research. Its scientists sit alongside Russian Defense Ministry researchers, including those from the 48th Central Scientific Research Institute, which Washington has sanctioned and associates with biological-weapons programs. Keep the Same Energy So, what about Ukraine? According to Russian officials, there were more than sufficient grounds to subject Ukraine’s U.S.-funded biofacilities to international scrutiny. Moscow proposed a U.N. Security Council investigation, but only China came out in support—the U.S., Britain and France voted against, while 10 more members abstained from voting. In response to Russia’s accusations in May 2022, the Pentagon confirmed it had supported dozens of Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities and diagnostic sites as part of "biological threat-reduction" efforts, but revealed little about the nature of these programs. However, in June 2026, then-director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a trove of material that lifted the lid on the U.S. government’s support for more than 120 biological laboratories across 30 countries. Some findings were troubling. One U.S.-supported veterinary institute in Kharkiv reportedly held hundreds of pathogens and had biosafety deficiencies as recently as 2019. Another received almost $3.5 million in American funding to establish a laboratory at an antiplague institute in the southern city of Odesa. These revelations appeared to validate, at least in part, some of Moscow’s concerns—the documents confirmed America had funded Ukrainian labs handling dangerous pathogens, including facilities with documented safety deficiencies. Russia is now being plagued by the strength of its own argument. Moscow’s own media has reported an alleged accident at a lab on Russian soil, renowned for its research into highly dangerous biological agents in a counter-bioterrorism capacity, and at least one person is known to be dead. There's no record of such a serious scenario unfolding at any comparable Ukrainian laboratory. If Nebenzya was sincere in his appeals to the United Nations, then Russia should offer to open the doors of the Irkutsk institute and make public the details of its investigations into what happened there last month. That said, Putin’s officials do have a reasonably good excuse to fall back on. For Irkutsk to undergo any international inspection, first there must be international inspectors. Knock Knock The international community has robust frameworks to ensure that two of the world’s most devastating types of weapons are kept in check. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) conducts inspections of its members’ facilities and can launch surprise investigations of suspected weapons sites. The OPCW’s 197 member states, including the U.S., Ukraine and Russia, have no right to refuse such an inspection. The New START treaty, which placed limits on the development of Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals, expired in February, but the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty still requires non-nuclear-weapon states to accept international safeguards and allow inspectors to check their nuclear material is not being converted into warheads. Biological weapons, meanwhile, have been prohibited under the BWC since 1975—but there is no equivalent permanent inspectorate, no facility-verification regime, and no international organization empowered to demand access to a laboratory like Irkutsk. The U.N. can investigate allegations of biological-weapons use, but has no mandate to carry out inspections on research facilities. The WHO can likewise request that Russia provide all its information about the suspected plague case under the International Health Regulations, but is powerless to twist Putin’s arm to unlock the gates in Irkutsk. On September 23, just nine days before Shipilova's death, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for a legally binding protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention with an "effective verification mechanism." For Moscow, the timing could not have been worse. It could also present an opportunity. Russia now has a chance to be the change it claims it wants to see in the world: publish Shipilova’s lab results and the findings of its investigative commissions, then invite independent international experts to examine the evidence and visit Irkutsk. A voluntary review of this scale would provide a clear, practical starting point for building the global verification system for biological weapons that Lavrov wants written into law. Moscow has spent years knocking on the doors of biological laboratories in Ukraine. It should start by opening its own….By David Averre0ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project memberSee more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.In May 2022, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, had a tricky question for Washington and Kyiv.

If biological laboratories operating in Ukraine with Pentagon support were engaged in peaceful scientific research, “why do you not agree to put it under international control?” he asked.

Before Nebenzya took to the microphone, Moscow had alleged that at least 30 Ukrainian labs funded by Washington were conducting dangerous military-biological research involving pathogens including plague, anthrax, tularemia and cholera. It demanded exhaustive explanations, invoked the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and even attempted to establish a Security Council commission to investigate American and Ukrainian activities.

An unexplained death at the Irkutsk Anti-Plague Research Institute has attracted international attention to a facility with dangerous pathogen collections, a Soviet biological-defense history, and links to Russian military researchers. Moscow denies there was ever a plague infection or a laboratory accident in the first place, but has yet to reveal its findings to the world despite widespread calls—including from the World Health Organization and the White House—to do so.

By the standards Nebenzya has set for Ukraine and the U.S., Russia is failing its own test on biological security.

On October 2, 28-year-old Darya Shipilova, an employee at the Irkutsk institute, reportedly died after developing severe pneumonia in late September.

Various Russian media reports alleged she contracted pneumonic plague after breaking a test tube containing a strain of Yersinia pestis—the bacterium associated with the plague—which the facility in Irkutsk openly acknowledges it uses in research.

But Russia’s public health watchdog Rospotrebnadzor claims Shipilova’s illness was completely unrelated to her work. On October 8, it announced that everyone who came into contact with the unfortunate lab worker had undergone medical observation, and no dangerous pathogens were found after almost 5,000 tests. Two investigative commissions reportedly found no biological-safety incident.

So far, all we have to go on is Moscow’s word.

“We don’t yet have the full picture of this event,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday. “We are not able to conduct a full risk assessment.” Take one look at the history of the institute in Irkutsk and the scope of its work, and you can understand why the international community may be concerned.

Founded in 1934, the Irkutsk institute has spent nearly a century studying some of the world’s deadliest infectious diseases. Its former director Igor Domaradsky, who took charge in 1957, described in his memoir Biowarrior how he established new laboratories at Irkutsk to study plague’s effects on the body, including what he called the “mechanism of plague toxicity.”

After leaving the institute, Domaradsky went on to become a key architect of Factor, a Soviet biological-weapons program which sought to genetically engineer more virulent, dangerous microorganisms. Irkutsk, meanwhile, participated in the Soviet antiplague network’s secret Problem 5 biodefense program, though renowned U.S. biological weapons historian Raymond Zilinskas found its involvement in offensive weapons programs was relatively limited compared with other Soviet institutes.

Today, Irkutsk continues to conduct biological-security and counter-bioterrorism research. Its scientists sit alongside Russian Defense Ministry researchers, including those from the 48th Central Scientific Research Institute, which Washington has sanctioned and associates with biological-weapons programs.

According to Russian officials, there were more than sufficient grounds to subject Ukraine’s U.S.-funded biofacilities to international scrutiny. Moscow proposed a U.N. Security Council investigation, but only China came out in support—the U.S., Britain and France voted against, while 10 more members abstained from voting.

In response to Russia’s accusations in May 2022, the Pentagon confirmed it had supported dozens of Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities and diagnostic sites as part of “biological threat-reduction” efforts, but revealed little about the nature of these programs. However, in June 2026, then-director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a trove of material that lifted the lid on the U.S. government’s support for more than 120 biological laboratories across 30 countries.

One U.S.-supported veterinary institute in Kharkiv reportedly held hundreds of pathogens and had biosafety deficiencies as recently as 2019. Another received almost $3.5 million in American funding to establish a laboratory at an antiplague institute in the southern city of Odesa.

These revelations appeared to validate, at least in part, some of Moscow’s concerns—the documents confirmed America had funded Ukrainian labs handling dangerous pathogens, including facilities with documented safety deficiencies.

Russia is now being plagued by the strength of its own argument.

Moscow’s own media has reported an alleged accident at a lab on Russian soil, renowned for its research into highly dangerous biological agents in a counter-bioterrorism capacity, and at least one person is known to be dead. There’s no record of such a serious scenario unfolding at any comparable Ukrainian laboratory.

If Nebenzya was sincere in his appeals to the United Nations, then Russia should offer to open the doors of the Irkutsk institute and make public the details of its investigations into what happened there last month.

That said, Putin’s officials do have a reasonably good excuse to fall back on. For Irkutsk to undergo any international inspection, first there must be international inspectors.

Related StoryIs This Putin’s Chernobyl Crisis?Knock KnockThe international community has robust frameworks to ensure that two of the world’s most devastating types of weapons are kept in check.

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) conducts inspections of its members’ facilities and can launch surprise investigations of suspected weapons sites. The OPCW’s 197 member states, including the U.S., Ukraine and Russia, have no right to refuse such an inspection.

The New START treaty, which placed limits on the development of Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals, expired in February, but the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty still requires non-nuclear-weapon states to accept international safeguards and allow inspectors to check their nuclear material is not being converted into warheads.

Biological weapons, meanwhile, have been prohibited under the BWC since 1975—but there is no equivalent permanent inspectorate, no facility-verification regime, and no international organization empowered to demand access to a laboratory like Irkutsk.

The U.N. can investigate allegations of biological-weapons use, but has no mandate to carry out inspections on research facilities. The WHO can likewise request that Russia provide all its information about the suspected plague case under the International Health Regulations, but is powerless to twist Putin’s arm to unlock the gates in Irkutsk.

On September 23, just nine days before Shipilova’s death, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for a legally binding protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention with an “effective verification mechanism.”

For Moscow, the timing could not have been worse. It could also present an opportunity.

Russia now has a chance to be the change it claims it wants to see in the world: publish Shipilova’s lab results and the findings of its investigative commissions, then invite independent international experts to examine the evidence and visit Irkutsk. A voluntary review of this scale would provide a clear, practical starting point for building the global verification system for biological weapons that Lavrov wants written into law.

Moscow has spent years knocking on the doors of biological laboratories in Ukraine. It should start by opening its own.