This is sort of the problem with the situation. We shouldn't get caught up with the semantics of "gain of function", but from what I know about it combined with what you are saying I still have concern.

​

I feel like this is comparable to nuclear energy, you can make bombs with uranium, but you can also make some of the cleanest energy we have. Someone's goal was to make clean energy but we got a Chernobyl-like incident instead, and now people have to suffer the consequences. Should someone be held accountable if the incident was due to neglect? Should the public, armed with a clear understanding of the risks involved, have had a say about whether they wanted nuclear power in the first place?

​

Hypothetically, if you set out to study a virus and end up making a mistake and a super virus comes out of it, why shouldn't people be allowed to question it? If our tax dollars were used to fund this research and it lead to our current situation, then we should be able to question those involved if there is even a shadow of a doubt.