| You imply that by being a scientist, you are untrustworthy, and that being a layperson without expertise makes you trustworthy. Not at all. Being open with your data and methods make you (more) trustworthy. Stonewalling and avoiding disclosure makes you untrustworthy. It has nothing to do with your role, but with how you play it. if a scientist falsifies data and gets caught, their entire career can be lost. Which of the East Anglia scientists lost their careers, or even their job? (I understand that there's no real evidence that they falsified data, just some implication. But they were badly unethical.) Not to mention that scientists generally have no vested monetary interest in the results, despite what people here seem to think. Grant money can only be used for research, not for personal gain. The continuation of their research is personal gain. A conclusion of "nothing interesting going on here" means they've got to find a new area of research, find new grant sources, etc. If they happen to find evidence of something scary, that gives them job security. I have no proof that they followed this line of thought, but it is definitely a conflict of interest. That said, virtually anyone involved in the field is there because they've got some passion for it, so probably everyone has some degree of conflict. The fact that someone made a choice that leads to a lower pay scale does not make them above corruption. You may as well ask me to believe that the NEA's sole concern is teaching kids, rather than preserving their members' benefits. |