Controversial for what? The lab should be backed, and has been backed, and was funded by many governments around the world. Funding should be tripled so we can find these viruses before they become pandemics (the reason for their research).
>The work in question was a type of gain-of-function research that involved taking wild viruses and passing them through live animals until they mutate into a form that could pose a pandemic threat. Scientists used it to take a virus that was poorly transmitted among humans and make it into one that was highly transmissible—a hallmark of a pandemic virus. This work was done by infecting a series of ferrets, allowing the virus to mutate until a ferret that hadn't been deliberately infected contracted the disease.
>The work entailed risks that worried even seasoned researchers. More than 200 scientists called for the work to be halted. The problem, they said, is that it increased the likelihood that a pandemic would occur through a laboratory accident.
When you set these concerns next to 2018 diplomatic cables describing safety problems at the biolab in question [0], perhaps the accidental-release theory does seem worthy of investigation.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...
According to the article Fauci is cited as writing, that research took place in Europe and the United States. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flu-virus-risk-wor...
But I strongly suspect that Rogin is mischaracterizing the cables. He claims that they express alarm over a lack of trained staff at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Staff from the WIV are trained at a US national lab in Galveston. I think it's highly likely that the directors of the WIV told US diplomats that that support was important, and asked for it to be increased. US diplomats then wrote that the lab needed more trained staff, and that the US should increase support. Someone in the Trump administration then found this cable and "leaked" it to a friendly commentator, Rogin. Rogin then characterized it as pointing out severe problems in the lab, without letting anyone see what the cable actually says.
I'd bet the reason Rogin won't publish the cable is that on the whole, it probably doesn't support the characterization he's trying to make.
You might agree, you might disagree, you might want to sit on either side of the controversy, but the article substantiates quite well the usage of the adjective "controversial" in the title.