Studying a genes regulatory mechanisms is a tedious process that involves identification of candidate regulators by transcription factor (TF) knockout or over-expression experiments, delineation of enhancers by reporter assays, and demonstration of direct TF influence by site mutagenesis, among other approaches. Such experiments are often chosen based on the biologists intuition, from several testable hypotheses. We pursue the goal of making this process systematic by using ideas from information theory to reason about experiments in gene regulation, in the hope of ultimately enabling rigorous experiment design strategies. For this, we make use of a state-of-the-art mathematical model of gene expression, which provides a way to formalize our current knowledge of cis- as well as trans- regulatory mechanisms of a gene. Ambiguities in such knowledge can be expressed as uncertainties in the model, which we capture formally by building an ensemble of plausible models that fit the existing data and defining a probability distribution over the ensemble. We then characterize the impact of a new experiment on our understanding of the genes regulation based on how the ensemble of plausible models and its probability distribution changes when challenged with results from that experiment. This allows us to assess the value of the experiment retroactively as the reduction in entropy of the distribution (information gain) resulting from the experiments results. We fully formalize this novel approach to reasoning about gene regulation experiments and use it to evaluate a variety of perturbation experiments on two developmental genes of D. melanogaster. We also provide objective and biologist-friendly descriptions of the information gained from each such experiment. The rigorously defined information theoretic approaches presented here can be used in the future to formulate systematic strategies for experiment design pertaining to studies of gene regulatory mechanisms.