You're bringing in character flaws into something that doesn't require them. Nothing is to be lost by treating the vials as live samples and having the appropri

You're bringing in character flaws into something that doesn't require them. Nothing is to be lost by treating the vials as live samples and having the appropriate experts deal with them. On the other hand, if you decide that there really isn't a risk -- a conclusion you have no data to support -- and you screw it up, you're going to unleash a pox on the world that is highly contagious and very few are vaccinated against. The 1978 outbreak in the UK [1] really upended many lives. Given the modern political climate in the US, I'm going to guess containment would be next to impossible. Maybe the risk is low, but the severity is very high. If there's an outbreak, we may never get it contained again. So, follow the appropriate protocols and hopefully no one gets hurt. If it turns out they were a prank or not viable, no one gets hurt either. This has nothing to do with shirking responsibility. It's quite the opposite. Going all cowboy on the handling of the samples would be incredibly selfish. For what? The ability to tell a story of sticking it to the man? [1] -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_smallpox_outbreak_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_smallpox_outbreak_in_the_...