Strong disagree, given the vaccine hysteria was on the part of the deniers. The science supported and continues to support the vaccines effectiveness and safety. It's primarily people who aren't scientists and don't know how to interpret medical studies that are claiming that they are dangerous or ineffective.

Nice to meet you, I'm a medical scientist that specializes in Alzheimer's research. Absolutely none of my colleagues think vaccines are dangerous.

[+] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good. There isn't a single scientific organization, given the whole point of science is democratizing information research.

General populace are supposed to rely on the top researchers in their field to disseminate information. These top researchers are usually the least controversial which is why they are trusted by the (again) democratized scientific community. I'll say this because a lot of people don't realize it: if you have any controversy in your past regarding misinformation or "fixing" results, and it ever gets out, you are immediately shunned and your work will never be looked at seriously again. You will lose your job and all credibility immediately. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it is heavily discouraged.

If we want to combat misinformation we should be encouraging people to trust scientists and not get information from organizations with ulterior motives.

[+] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Dr_Cog@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm not saying trust any random person who calls themself a scientist. Myself included.

I'm saying people should trust reputable scientists at the top of their field. Ideally, journalists should do the leg work to identify these people and give them a voice, and describe why they should be trusted.

That doesn't happen with nearly all right-leaning journalistic publications, unfortunately, resulting in a huge population not knowing who to trust or just mistrusting scientists in general.

Edit: I realize I didn't answer your point on freedom of access. I do firmly believe all science should be accessible, because no single study should ever be taken as fact. Science works through repetition, and if you have a study that disagrees with nearly everything else then it's either a brand new way of looking at things (and will be supported in the future) or is junk (and will be ignored). But just because something is junk doesn't mean we should prevent people from accessing it.