That might be true in some cases but there's another side that doesn't display much in the way of professional restraint or intellectual security. I have seen or should say demonstrated the games and dishonest lengths scientist will go to, when trying defend their work or the work of their "friend's". When that work is shown to be at best incredibly incompetent, all the way to flat out scientific fraud.*On another note completely but something to consider is I feel the scientists who do participate in FHF have been, and continue to be very gracious in professional restraint on many topics here where members have revealed gaps or misunderstandings in knowledge - in subjects where scientists conceivably understand the subject at hand down to a cellular level im sure quite often, yet; either explain gently or graciously move on without continued comment where instead perhaps such commentary might embarrass a poster.
Thats a testament to intellectual security.
I have been called everything from paranoid to a misogynist, had my family insulted, been sent bulling and threatening messages , have been asked to help out with scientific research papers, papers that would a have been used to hurt private individuals and been sent privy information, asked that it be kept secret (I obliged in spite of the backstabbing ways of the individual that sent it to me) etc .
All in response to my unabridged appraisal's of the lousy work, motives and benefits behind the production of said work found primarily in the academic feeding frenzy that has become invasive science. No one demographic can be judged as a whole good or bad. And no estimate / number can be assigned to the percentage of good of bad in any profession. What can be looked at is the demonstrable benefits and the likely hood of getting away with something in a given situation. From there its a matter of applied knowledge and insight when inspecting a person's work and judging a person's integrity. Possessing the necessary ingredients to competently complete the process of reaching informed conclusions. I have it in spades.
A fitting tribute to Mike "Aqualung" Dorcas. John Goodman says it all at the 1:42 mark.