The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) PREDICT program, aimed at preventing global pandemics by identifying and studying emerging infectious diseases, has come under scrutiny after it was revealed that approximately 11,000 virus samples were transferred to the Wuhan Institute of Virology without formal oversight. This transfer was part of a decade-long initiative operated by the University of California-Davis, with a substantial budget of $210 million.
The documents, uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act request by the investigative group U.S. Right to Know and first reported by The Daily Caller, indicate that the samples originated from Yunnan Province, a region known for viruses closely related to SARS-CoV-2. Many of these samples were stored in media capable of preserving live viruses, which poses significant biosecurity risks.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a center of international controversy due to biosafety concerns and alleged connections to the Chinese military, was never officially recognized as a partner laboratory under the PREDICT program. This lack of formal partnership raises questions about the decision to entrust the institute with such sensitive materials.
Internal records highlight the absence of contractual safeguards that would ensure the U.S. had access to the samples or that copies would be stored domestically. The documents also reveal that labs in Yunnan, which were not official partners of PREDICT, funneled their collected samples to Wuhan for testing and storage.
Two key figures associated with the sample transfers are Wuhan-based virologist Ben Hu and Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance, a major contractor for the PREDICT program. Both have been involved in early COVID-19 research efforts in Wuhan. Following investigations into his oversight failures, Daszak has been barred from receiving federal funding.
The State Department has confirmed that it is investigating USAID's past health contracts, with a senior official stating that future U.S. government funding will be contingent on clear, enforceable safeguards when collaborating with foreign labs.
The recent shutdown of USAID is now a topic of heated debate. While some express concern over the implications for global disease surveillance, others criticize the agency for its lack of transparency and potential conflicts with U.S. interests. The transfer of virus samples without formal oversight has intensified the discourse surrounding America's control over sensitive biological research, especially in light of ongoing COVID-19 origin investigations.
