Are Scientists 'Goodies' or 'Baddies'?

I am not sure that articles, like that by Thomas Frank actually enlighten people (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/wuhan-coronavirus-lab-leak-covid-virus-origins-china). Frank says, upfront, that "If the Wuhan lab-leak hypothesis is true, expect a political earthquake". It is clear that Frank (like many people) preferred a world of absolutes. He seems to have started from a position where 'the scientists' were the 'good guys', solving our problems. In contrast, some well-known politicians were the 'bad guys', doing things that made our problems worse. The suggestion that Covid might have been generated by 'science', seems to have made Frank 'lose his religion'. He seems almost affronted to learn that there are vested interests in science (most people can't do science without funding). Frank now seems to believe that vested interests might have been in play, when the lab-leak hypothesis was first mentioned and routinely discounted. In science, a hypothesis is a potential explanation of a phenomenon. A hypothesis must be testable (involve no 'magical thinking'). If the tests are well-designed and generate good, reliable data, you might be able to judge whether the hypothesis is probable or unlikely. Science never enables you to totally refute a hypothesis. My prediction is, because we will be confounded by secrecy and rumour, we will never know, for sure, whether Covid19 was caused by a lab-leak or by the virus jumping from animals to humans (a zoonosis). One explanation suits some parties, whereas the alternative will be favoured by others. Both were possible. Both could happen again. Either way, the virus makes people seriously ill and kills some of them. Science has certainly done much to ameliorate the situation (developing vaccines and other protections). It would be a great pity to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', by rejecting science. As in other professions, there are good and bad (and I'm not talking about competence) scientists. I believe that the 'good guys' greatly outnumber the bad (but I would say that wouldn't I?). Remember also that science per se has no intrinsic morality. It can achieve good things for bad reasons and bad things for good reasons. Humans need their scientists. Scientists, however, should neither be put on pedestals nor be collectively condemned, on the basis of a mere hypothesis.