There are real issues with the way in which the scientific community is perceived that extend beyond the labeling of green meme mentalities (labeling can be useful, but sometimes one can pigeonhole an issue in order to fit a label). I think a lot of the distrust of science you see in the public has factors outside of the green meme as it has been discussed here.
A Criticism by a Nobel Laureate of the Most Prestigious Science Journals
-----
"I am a scientist. Mine is a professional world that achieves great things for humanity. But it is disfigured by inappropriate incentives....
We all know what distorting incentives have done to finance and banking. The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science....
These journals aggressively curate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than to stimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brands are then marketed with a gimmick called "impact factor" – a score for each journal, measuring the number of times its papers are cited by subsequent research. Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so better journals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing which has become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonus culture is to banking....
In extreme cases, the lure of the luxury journal can encourage the cutting of corners, and contribute to the escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent. Science alone has recently retracted high-profile papers reporting cloned human embryos, links between littering and violence, and the genetic profiles of centenarians. Perhaps worse, it has not retracted claims that a microbe is able to use arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus, despite overwhelming scientific criticism....
Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold of the bonus culture, which drives risk-taking that is rational for individuals but damaging to the financial system, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals. The result will be better research that better serves science and society."
-----
I don't know if the trust/reliance concept was the best way to convey what I'm trying to say, but it cannot be ignored that the mainstream public is beginning to become aware in its own way of the "escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent." This impacts on how people view the scientific field, right or wrongly, and in my opinion is an important aspect of the issue.
I couldn't have been the only one who has walked into the office, hear some smalltalk about a recent media article about a study that changes a health/childrearing/insert some other science related recommendation here, and then hear people say "next thing you know they're going to say oranges are bad for you <or insert other random statement about conventional science recommendation turned on its head here>." Man I've experienced such smalltalk so many times. Or maybe I am the only one here who has experienced such talk? That would explain a lot. And if so, I'll be quiet now!
A Criticism by a Nobel Laureate of the Most Prestigious Science Journals
-----
"I am a scientist. Mine is a professional world that achieves great things for humanity. But it is disfigured by inappropriate incentives....
We all know what distorting incentives have done to finance and banking. The incentives my colleagues face are not huge bonuses, but the professional rewards that accompany publication in prestigious journals – chiefly Nature, Cell and Science....
These journals aggressively curate their brands, in ways more conducive to selling subscriptions than to stimulating the most important research. Like fashion designers who create limited-edition handbags or suits, they know scarcity stokes demand, so they artificially restrict the number of papers they accept. The exclusive brands are then marketed with a gimmick called "impact factor" – a score for each journal, measuring the number of times its papers are cited by subsequent research. Better papers, the theory goes, are cited more often, so better journals boast higher scores. Yet it is a deeply flawed measure, pursuing which has become an end in itself – and is as damaging to science as the bonus culture is to banking....
In extreme cases, the lure of the luxury journal can encourage the cutting of corners, and contribute to the escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent. Science alone has recently retracted high-profile papers reporting cloned human embryos, links between littering and violence, and the genetic profiles of centenarians. Perhaps worse, it has not retracted claims that a microbe is able to use arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus, despite overwhelming scientific criticism....
Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold of the bonus culture, which drives risk-taking that is rational for individuals but damaging to the financial system, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals. The result will be better research that better serves science and society."
-----
I don't know if the trust/reliance concept was the best way to convey what I'm trying to say, but it cannot be ignored that the mainstream public is beginning to become aware in its own way of the "escalating number of papers that are retracted as flawed or fraudulent." This impacts on how people view the scientific field, right or wrongly, and in my opinion is an important aspect of the issue.
I couldn't have been the only one who has walked into the office, hear some smalltalk about a recent media article about a study that changes a health/childrearing/insert some other science related recommendation here, and then hear people say "next thing you know they're going to say oranges are bad for you <or insert other random statement about conventional science recommendation turned on its head here>." Man I've experienced such smalltalk so many times. Or maybe I am the only one here who has experienced such talk? That would explain a lot. And if so, I'll be quiet now!