The Department of Microbiology and the Peace Studies Program brought a speaker to Cornell on Wednesday whose background may have incited prejudice and discomfort just a few decades ago. Dr. Guennady Lepioshkin, now of the Scientific Research Institute for Environmental Monitoring, was once a bioweapons scientist for the Soviet Union.

Back in the U.S.S.R.: Dr. Guennady Lepioshkin, a former Soviet Bioweapons Scientist, lectures Wednesday. - By: Gabrielle FernandezSpeaking through a translator, Lepioshkin described the “pathway [he] took in life,” which led him from a position as a military physician to that of a bioweapons researcher on a remote island between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. He worked on developing anthrax, botulism, cholera and pneumonic plague.

Lepioshkin’s frequent references to a series of black-and-white photographs suggested a nostalgic perusal of an old scrapbook. The pictures showed Lepioshkin and his colleagues singing in a choir, playing volleyball and fishing. In each photo, Lepioshkin pointed himself out, and at one point noted which fish was his own catch. He emphasized that the scientists enjoyed the pastimes of ordinary life, despite their dangerous and secretive work.

“We weren’t only good at working hard. We would also have a good time,” he said.

A sudden shift in the presentation led to the more ominous aspects of Lepioshkin’s former work. He detailed the possibilities and hazards of biotechnology. 

“As long as humans … and microorganisms have existed, there has been war and competition,” he said.

He noted that his country was not the only one to explore bioweapons and described how one by one, Japan, France, Canada and the United States “joined the club.”

A slide detailed the chilling particulars of the diseases with which Lepioshkin and Soviet his colleagues worked. It listed the number of organisms in an infective dose of anthrax, botulism, cholera and pneumonic plague. Mortality rates for all the diseases were high if untreated.

Since the end of the Soviet Union, facilities like the ones where Lepioshkin worked have been dismantled. He showed photos of gutted buildings and demolished structures.

“The basis for weapons production has been completely destroyed. The scientists who used to work at these facilities have all found a new job,” he said.

However, the dangers posed by their experimentation still linger.

Lepioshkin described the Soviet bioweapons testing grounds on an island in the Aral Sea. Though remote at the time of the testing in the mid-twentieth century, the island has since become virtually part of the mainland as the Aral Sea dries up.

According to Lepioshkin, the substances in the dust blowing from what was once the sea floor pose “a very urgent problem” to the surrounding area. 

He also mentioned the troubling case of containers of anthrax spores, which Soviet scientists in the 1980s disinfected and buried. They assumed the spores were no longer a threat, he said. When a group of Americans returned ten years later, however, they found that some spores had survived. After using the anthrax for vaccination research, the Americans finally disposed of the spores for good.

Finally, Lepioshkin discussed the pressures of working in such a dangerous and secretive field. He noted that a single mistake on the part of a scientist could hurt not only fellow researchers, but countless others outside the facility.

“There was no room for mistakes,” he said.

A lively bilingual question-and-answer session followed the talk. Students and professors asked questions in both Russian and English, while Lepioshkin’s translator worked to make the discussion coherent to all. Even after the presentation’s conclusion, questions and concerns lingered.

“We didn’t really know what to expect,” said Prof. Bill Ghiorse, microbiology. “I was impressed with the way he described the way they dealt with the safety issue. The downside is, I don’t know if we know yet how much of those [weapons] are still stockpiled.”

Students also left the seminar with a heightened sense of the humanity of Soviet scientists like Lepioshkin.

“I thought [the presentation] was interesting,” said Nadeem Khan ’11. “It was relevant to understanding their culture. He wanted to show us his life wasn’t all work.”