In a different response I asked for you to provide examples, but I didn't submit that reply until after you posted this, so I'll respond here.

I looked through those articles, and most examples of a non-military scientific study had qualification from the author on the actual aim of the study and how future studies built upon the results. On the other hand, many of the military-funded studies were, in my opinion, hare-brained and ill-suited to begin with. Any study whose premise can be milled down to "how to kill more people better" is half-baked at best, and regressively dangerous at worst. Still, they produced knowledge or technology that later proved useful. Science has always been like this: the scientists who discovered nuclear fission wanted it to be a new energy source long before the worst of us chose to weaponize it.

The same applies to gain-of-function research. It can help us understand how viruses cross species barriers, as COVID-19 did from bats to humans. That potential is real and valuable, even if the risks feel frightening to non-scientists. Some work may be better paused, but the underlying scientific questions remain important.

As for cost, science has never been cheap. Researchers, equipment, specialized materials, and long-term animal care add up quickly. Maintaining a single genotyping mouse colony can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. What looks frivolous to one person may be vital to another, and many breakthroughs begin with questions that seem irrelevant at first glance.

My broader point is simple: much of science’s value lies beneath the surface, in expertise and context the public rarely sees. Too often, people dismiss what they don’t understand instead of learning more or deferring to those who do. If we’re worried about waste, the Pentagon’s inability to pass an audit despite consuming more taxpayer money than scientific research ever has, says far more about misplaced priorities than the price of experimentation and discovery.