[unshavedyak]

To add to your point, this erodes trust in science too. Public perception of complex topics is very, very important. People effectively have to "trust" science. When it's corrupted there are ripples of distrust sown through the populace. Vaccine deniers, climate deniers, etcetc - distrust is just one of the fuels that fan these flames.

[Ensorceled]

The people sowing distrust ARE the vaccine deniers and climate deniers. People comparing vaccine trials to cigarettes, like the person you are agreeing with here, ARE the problem; they were not created by "corporate funded vaccine trials".

[unshavedyak]

You don't think perverse incentivized trials/studies/etc do damage to public perception? I'm not well versed in this subject (or versed at all), but if anything i feel like i am the public we're speaking about. Pro science, but scared of bad faith science.

For example, my perception is that the push for pro-sugar doctrine "back in the day" has caused significant health problems and a distrust in the process.

Do you view this as not the case?

[anoxor]

I have a Ph.D. in a hard science, so I guess I'm not totally unaware of how science works. Let's say, I have lived experience as to why 30% of physics and chemistry research can't be replicated.

Putting 100% faith and trust in a "corporate funded vaccine trials" is something I would suggest against given the potential monetary gains from those conducting it.

[Ensorceled]

I've been part of teams that have put products through FDA clinical trials.

I can assure it was a somewhat different process than what ever process your "hard science Ph.D" requires for publishing papers.