The public is therefore asked to trust scientists as ethical beings and not what they do in the laboratory. So, because scientists are human, they themselves are fallible and are harshly judged when their work brings controversial revelations. In an age of political cronyism and corporate bullies scientists, in the eyes of the public are vulnerable to temptation. Power, greed, or loss of their position tempts them to interfere with objectivity and serve their paymasters. In short, scientists are vulnerable to martyr their human principle in defence of the scientific method.
Science is the new religion and people look to it for guidance.
However, when it does not gain public favour the scientists themselves become the victims of an inquisition, as in the case of Genetically Modified foods and suspect that for every commissioned expert opinion there is an equal and opposing expert opinion purchased. Scientists insist on using the scientific method to defend their position with scientific facts. These very 'facts' are of dubious worth in the public eye and are challenged accordingly. Scientists, hearing the public protest assume that a misunderstanding has occurred and start to explain their actions using the scientific method again, like an Englishman in a foreign country and as a result appear to be patronising and alienate popular support. Scientists would be better off using a post-modern or even quantum discourse to argue for their research and are out of phase with the contemporary philosophies that underpin the rest of society.