Your article actually argues in favor of the type of research BU was doing because it's being done post-outbreak: "Once an emerging outbreak virus has been identified, it needs to be analysed quickly to establish what type it is; which molecular mechanisms (such as receptor type) enable it to jump between individuals; how it spreads through human populations; and how it affects those infected In other words, at least four kinds of analysis are needed: genomic, virological, epidemiological and clinical.". BU's work is in the genomic and virological categories and addresses the kind of questions the article wants addressed as part of a surveillance strategy.

The article strongly opposes making predictions of whether a pathogen will be pandemic because predictions are a rigged game. There are enough factors that you are very unlikely to be correct, and even then a true positive combined with successful mitigations erodes public trust because "the severity of the virus had been overblown". Geologists avoid making predictions of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes for similar reasons.

It is not directly opposed to study of pre-pandemic animal pathogens: "Surveys of animals will undoubtedly result in the discovery of many thousands of new viruses. These data will benefit studies of diversity and evolution, and could tell us whether and why some pathogens might jump species boundaries more frequently than others." This makes sense, because study of pre-pandemic pathogens is needed to set a foundation such that the post-outbreak analysis the article wants us to focus on can be completed in a reasonable time frame.

The article is arguing for rapid response and against predictions. It's not opposed to basic research of pathogens, and actually supports this specific type of research.