Dalek. It's important to note that your bioweapon post was sourced from an opinion column and therefore not subject to factual verification by the publisher. I found the rest of the opinion column interesting also.
Closer to home is a similar field the U.S. government is now aggressively funding â?? biodefense. Over the next two months, the Center for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases at the UT Medical Branch in Galveston will, along with other universities nationwide, submit proposals to the federal government to build one of a possible two national biocontainment labs. These high-containment facilities are equipped to study some of the world's most lethal and infectious diseases and biological agents. If UTMB wins the bid, it will be a victory for the UT System as it expands and strengthens the center's pre-existing expertise.

The type of research that would happen at UTMB would be a key to better understanding how lethal infections work. It would offload the strain on government agencies like the CDC that have less time and resources to commit to basic academic research.

As good as this sounds, people should not put blind trust into such institutions. So far, UTMB intends to stay away from the type of classified research occurring at military institutions. However, there will always remain the possibility that UTMB could take classified contracts for the center and, in effect, limit the public's knowledge of their activities. Without heightened vigilance and support from the local and scientific community, UTMB could become as much of a national security liability as Fort Detrick.

Farukhi is an economics senior.
Creating cures for bioweapons is kind of like white hat hacking. You have to find the vulnerabilities/strains of bioweapons in order to develop a fix/preventative/cure. All that being said, I agree that the U.S. most likely supplied Iraq with bioweapon technology; and that action was a horrible decision which we are paying for in our current situation in Iraq.