It's still a _highly_ biased characterization of the editorial. Your take here is nuanced and fair, and I would not disagree at all. The comment I responded to was drastically different.
Any hint of nuance or context is absent, it implies that he specifically advocates for their creation _as_ weapons of mass destruction when the opposite stance is evident in the article, it's paywalled so many people won't check, it has little to nothing to do with the HN story.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-use_technology#Biologic...