Their motives were sincere. They wanted to assess the risk of a 1918 “Spanish Influenza” (H1N1) type outbreak in the future. They believe that since there are Avian Influenza viruses, the H1N1 outbreak resulted from mutations in that virus causing cross species infectivity and transmission.

The experiment (their graphic):

Reasonable, it would seem, until you think a bit and conclude that “post hoc ergo propter hoc” logic isn’t really valid.

Koch's postulates are as follows:

• The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.
• The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.
• The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.
• The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.

They’re limited (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7105), but valid.

The investigators weren’t using the original virus. They reverse engineered present viruses to yield one with less than 3% genetic variance from the 1918 virus. Full stop. So, what did these investigators do? They reassembled (as best they could) one they believe was the original. By doing so, all they measured was the number of steps needed to assemble an artificial or ‘most likely’ virus and test its mutability. So much for that, until you realize that about 50 million people died in that outbreak (not counting the ones who died of Parkinson’s Disease as a result of it as well). That’s the most devastating disease outbreak in recorded human history.

So, they took logically invalid steps, created an artificial pathogen and then tallied the number of steps needed to turn it into an hypothesized real killer.

Their conclusion? The varieties of Avian Influenza have the genetic ingredients necessary to underpin the emergence of a virus similar to the deadly 1918 influenza virus, and that the Swine Flu vaccination would grant some immunity.

"The point of the study was to assess the risk of avian viruses currently circulating in nature," explains Kawaoka, who, in addition to his appointment as a professor in the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, holds a faculty position at the University of Tokyo. "We found genes in avian influenza viruses quite closely related to the 1918 virus and, to evaluate the pandemic potential should such a 1918-like avian virus emerge, identified changes that enabled it to transmit in ferrets. "With each study, we learn more about the key features that enable an avian influenza virus to adapt to mammals and become transmissible," says Kawaoka. "Eventually, we hope to be able to reliably identify viruses with significant pandemic potential so we can focus preparedness efforts appropriately." – Science Daily

I think that their goal to find out future possible risks was laudable…but incredibly dangerous and irresponsible, and not fully valid since what will happen in the future isn’t really predictable, even if the virus they assembled was the real H1N1. Also, in this day and age, creating things like this is extremely dangerous outside a super secure laboratory such as the one in Fort Dietrich.

Sources:

http://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/abstract/S1931-3128(14)00163-2 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/11/crazy-dangerous-creation-deadly-airborne-flu-virus

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/controversial-study-created-airborne-virus-similar-1918-pandemic-influenza-virus

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140611131551.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29