Harvard researcher accused of smuggling embryos into the US
- In February 2025, Kseniia Petrova was questioned by Customs after returning from France with frog embryos.
- Arguments about the definition of 'biological materials' took place during her court hearing.
- If convicted, Petrova faces up to 20 years in prison and significant fines for the smuggling charge.
In February, 2025, at Boston Logan International Airport, a Harvard University researcher, Kseniia Petrova, was questioned by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. She was returning from France, where she had visited a lab focused on frog embryology and obtained samples for her cancer research. During this customs check, authorities alleged that Petrova failed to declare the clawed frog embryos and embryonic samples in her luggage. After her initial questioning, it was reported that her luggage was flagged by a detection dog. Petrova's defense argued about the vagueness surrounding the definition of 'biological materials' as it pertains to the law. The testimony from Brian Goldsworthy, an agent from Homeland Security Investigations, suggested Petrova could not have left the airport with the materials had she declared them. He referenced experts who reviewed the material and labeled it as biological material, yet admitted uncertainty regarding its 'alive' status. After hearing the testimony, the judge and the lawyers debated the specific definitions and implications regarding biological materials. Petrova, who maintains that she was unaware of the need to declare the items, has claimed she was not trying to sneak anything past customs. Following her arrest, she was detained and faced visa cancellation, although a judge later ruled against the immigration officials' actions concerning her detention. Petrova now faces a single smuggling charge, which could potentially lead to a 20-year prison sentence and fines up to $250,000 if convicted. As the legal proceedings continue, both sides have been instructed to submit further written arguments for the judge to review, indicating that the case's complexities concerning the definitions of biological materials and customs declaration practices will play a significant role in its outcome.