It's much easier to sit on the sidelines and come up with reasons why you shouldn't do something new than it is to actually do it.
Some people have figured this out and built careers on it. This wouldn't be a problem, except that this opposition eventually becomes their professional identity - they derive prestige from being the person who is fighting against whatever. So even after researchers address their concerns, they have to ignore the progress or move the goalposts so they can keep on opposing it.
This doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. In the same way we have public defenders who professionally defend scoundrels, it seems good to have people who professionally critique new technologies.
I'm old enough to remember the naive optimism around the internet in the 2000s. "The long tail", "cognitive surplus", "one laptop per child", Creative Commons, the Arab "Spring", breathless Youtube videos about how social media is gonna revolutionize society for the better, etc. Hardly anyone forecasted clickbait, Trump tweets, revenge porn, crypto scams, or social media shaming. If we had a few professional critics who were incentivized to pour cold water on the whole deal, or at least scan the horizon for potential problems, maybe things would've turned out better.
Some people have figured this out and built careers on it. This wouldn't be a problem, except that this opposition eventually becomes their professional identity - they derive prestige from being the person who is fighting against whatever. So even after researchers address their concerns, they have to ignore the progress or move the goalposts so they can keep on opposing it.