You keep using the word "eugenics". I do not think it means what you think it means. Eugenics was the attempt to genetically improve human populations by either encouraging or forcing sterilization, abortion, and birth control among the poor and disabled. This was neither good science nor bad science, because it wasn't science at all, but rather a social and political movement as well as a set of governmental policies. (And, just as an aside, "reactionary" isn't quite the best characterization of the political ideology that motivated eugenics; eugenics was pioneered largely by American progressives roughly a century ago.) Analyzing genetic data that NIH is gatekeeping is not eugenics in any way, shape, or form.
While I don't know what you're talking about when you use the word "eugenics", I don't really need to because your argument has the same flaw regardless. Whatever "eugenic" hypotheses you're worried about, if they really are "bad science", the data will bear that out and the best solution is to disseminate that data as freely as possible rather than withholding it. Conversely, the only way bad science can be protected is by prohibiting inquiry and establishing dogma by fiat, which is exactly what happened in the case of Lysenkoism.
While I don't know what you're talking about when you use the word "eugenics", I don't really need to because your argument has the same flaw regardless. Whatever "eugenic" hypotheses you're worried about, if they really are "bad science", the data will bear that out and the best solution is to disseminate that data as freely as possible rather than withholding it. Conversely, the only way bad science can be protected is by prohibiting inquiry and establishing dogma by fiat, which is exactly what happened in the case of Lysenkoism.