I would say it depends on the intention:

if the intention is to spread lies - then I would say no. Otherwise very much yes, because who would be the authority to determine the facts from the fake?

We abolished the power of the inquisition some centuries before, because of bad experience with the concept of holy truth or canon.

Science is an open process, where it is clear that some positions held today, will be abolished in the future, with new data.

Or is the concept to let only certified scientists speak up? Well, that opens up the question, who gets to decide who is one.

I think it is very dangerous to influence that process, with state authority declaring what is right and what is wrong.

And in this specific case it seems to be about an "official" scientist Dr. Malone(who was invited) who might have gone off the rails quite some time ago. But it is still important for people do decide on who to trust, than installing a government institution to do so. Because I do not know molecular biology - but I like to know, that one of the people involved with the invention of mRNA vaccines strongly advises against it. And I can read about it all and then decide for me it is likely mostly tinfoil hat area. But if the government would activly suppress and censor his opinion - I might think, there is actually more behind.