So, wait. It's not gain-of-function research unless they successfully make a more dangerous virus? These "scientists" are getting so much better at politics. Playing with the definitions of words is a class political tactic!

I'm going to quote one of the scientists the article actually quoted themselves:

"Now, the outcome of the experiment was not clear. You could have assumed that the virus, compared to the ancestral virus is less pathogenic (which was the case). But it could also have been more pathogenic. Therefore, these experiments need to be done in appropriate biosafety laboratories. And, if the virus can become more pathogenic and falls into certain categories, you also need permission from the US government to perform the experiment - especially if they fund your research. And that is what was not done here."

Later on, on the same subject, he literally says: "Having said all that, I absolutely think GOF research should be tightly regulated and controlled."

Our scientific institutions surely have become wholly corrupted by politics. This is gain-of-function research. Whether you think that type of research should be conducted or not is moot. The scientist quoted said he thinks this was not dangerous GOF research, but still needed to be tightly regulated.