It is like withholding information on how to produce high quality steel because it will be used to make very sharp swords, or nuclear energy and research is bad and information about it should be restricted because such knowledge is involved in producing bombs.
I was onboard until your argument produced holes in it. I agree with what I quoted, but tell me the benefit of making a deadly flu virus that doesn't spread over it's natural means? That doesn't provide a barrier to improve anything in my world. If anything someone funded it to do just that: Have scientific evidence for a terrorism report. Should we censor ourselves from providing information like this? Totally.
There are many other ways to massage a scientist's ego than let them do a dog-and-pony show to prove their funding was actually used for something. I don't think it advantageous to share things like this at all.