> She does not provide solutions. She uses this broadly sweeping argument as a way to cast judgment on fields of research she is not an expert in. Can you prov

> She does not provide solutions. She uses this broadly sweeping argument as a way to cast judgment on fields of research she is not an expert in. Can you provide examples? I guess the most glaring one is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htb_n7ok9AU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htb_n7ok9AU And I actually can't disagree with it entirely. > Should we be saying "scientists are not to be trusted" as a general, categorical statement? Here's the thing. She's saying: "Scientists are not going to be trusted at this rate if the situation doesn't change". Heck, this is literally happening right now with the NIH and the NSF.