The recent disclosure by United States Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that more than 120 biological laboratories across over 30 countries received American funding has reignited a debate that many governments, scientists, and citizens have raised for years.
Questions that were once dismissed as conspiracy theories are increasingly becoming matters of public discussion.
The issue is not whether scientific research should take place. Scientific research has contributed greatly to the fight against infectious diseases and has saved millions of lives across the world. The issue is whether powerful nations are conducting high-risk biological research beyond their borders with inadequate transparency and accountability.
For decades, the United States has maintained biological research partnerships in numerous countries through agencies linked to public health, defense cooperation, and disease surveillance.
American officials insist that these programs are designed to prevent pandemics, strengthen laboratory capacity, and improve global health security. Critics, however, argue that many of these activities operate under limited public scrutiny and raise legitimate concerns about biosecurity.
Recent disclosures by Tulsi Gabbard have intensified these concerns. According to information released by her office, American funding supported more than 120 laboratories abroad, some handling dangerous pathogens and some associated with controversial gain-of-function research.
The revelation has prompted questions about what research was conducted, where it occurred, and what level of oversight existed.
These concerns are not new.
For years, Russian officials repeatedly accused Washington of conducting military-linked biological activities through overseas laboratories.
Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov became one of the most vocal critics of American-funded biological programs before his death in 2024. Moscow consistently argued that biological facilities supported by the United States required greater international transparency.
China has also called for increased disclosure regarding overseas biological research programs and has urged stronger enforcement mechanisms under the Biological Weapons Convention.
Even within the United States, questions have emerged. During the COVID-19 pandemic, debates surrounding gain-of-function research, the origins of the virus, and the role of organizations such as EcoHealth Alliance generated intense scrutiny among scientists, politicians, and intelligence officials.
Technology entrepreneur Elon Musk added fuel to the controversy when he accused USAID of funding biological research that he believed contributed to dangerous outcomes. While his claims remain controversial and heavily disputed, they reflected growing skepticism among sections of the American public regarding overseas biological programs.
Africa finds itself at the center of this debate. Several African countries have hosted research partnerships involving American institutions. Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, and others have participated in programs focused on disease surveillance, virus discovery, and pandemic preparedness.
Supporters argue that these partnerships have strengthened local scientific capacity and improved the ability to detect outbreaks. Critics respond that Africa has often served as a testing ground for projects designed and funded elsewhere, while local populations remain inadequately informed about the full scope of activities.
The concern becomes even more sensitive because Africa continues to experience repeated outbreaks of deadly diseases including Ebola, Marburg, Mpox, Lassa Fever, and other emerging infections.
Uganda has experienced multiple Ebola and Marburg outbreaks in recent years. The Democratic Republic of Congo has faced recurrent Ebola emergencies. These outbreaks naturally raise questions among citizens whenever foreign laboratories operate in affected regions.
There is currently no verified evidence linking these outbreaks to American laboratories. Nevertheless, the coincidence between intensive pathogen research and recurring outbreaks fuels public suspicion.
Governments and international organizations must understand that secrecy and poor communication create an environment where mistrust thrives.
The principle at stake is simple.
No country should be used as a biological testing ground for activities that would face greater scrutiny elsewhere. No population should be treated merely as a source of samples, data, or experimental subjects.
Every nation has a sovereign right to know what biological research is taking place within its borders, what pathogens are being studied, who funds the work, and what safeguards are in place.
This is not an anti-American position. The same standards should apply equally to China, Russia, France, Britain, India, or any other country conducting biological research beyond its borders.
The world learned from COVID-19 that biological incidents, whether natural or accidental, can have global consequences. A laboratory accident in one country can affect every country. For this reason, transparency cannot be optional.
African governments must strengthen oversight mechanisms, demand full disclosure from foreign partners, require independent inspections, and ensure that research agreements prioritize national interests.
African scientists must also play leading roles in projects conducted on African soil rather than remaining junior partners in initiatives designed elsewhere.
The future of biological research should be based on openness, accountability, and mutual respect. If foreign powers wish to conduct research in Africa, they should welcome transparency rather than resist it.
The ultimate lesson is clear. Public health cooperation is necessary, but blind trust is not. Scientific advancement is important, but it must never come at the expense of sovereignty, human dignity, or public safety.
Africa deserves partnership, not experimentation.