Science has a PR problem and like it or not, science needs the support of society at large to succeed and move forward.
Take masking for example, and here is a bomb most people are totally unaware of:
You want the population to wear masks so that the sick people are wearing masks. Masks aren't going to do much to prevent healthy people from getting sick. But they will do a lot to stop sick people from getting others sick.
This truth is almost never communicated though. Why? Because then wearing a mask becomes a "mark of illness" and nobody wants to label themselves as sick or potentially sick. So the solution to this is everyone wears a mask all the time. But you cannot communicate this whole scenario either because most people aren't smart enough to grasp it or not smart enough to understand why they need to wear a mask healthy or sick.
So this is the kind of problem science faces, and frankly I think the best thing to do is exactly what they did: Insinuate that wearing a mask protects you and insist everyone wear a mask.
I can't help but think this attitude is awful. Most people are too dumb to understand that it is the sick people who should wear masks!? Like what in the world!?
No. You shoot straight with the public. Then you plead with them to do what is best for everyone by wearing a mask when they are sick.
The alternative, as you suggested, is extremely damaging to society longterm.
What "inside" are you in?
I don't see this as a non-issue as a scientist. It's a massive problem. It means that when I read papers, I'm constantly extremely suspicious of the results.`
This applies to multiple levels in the publication game. Lab grants would likely dry up if the size of the problem was revealed to be massive. Publications would lose credibility, prestige, and money if the problem proved large. It can be recognized as a problem by those who's salaries don't depend on it, but still remain unchanged because those in the best position to change it have salaries that do.
If we are talking about the number of scientists who see flaws and hold skepticism, that's absolutely fine (I'd argue the number could be much higher and be quite healthy overall). But we are talking about integrity. Ethical research, lack of fraud, lack of bias, lack of perverse incentives, a system that produces high quality and trustworthy output by design, etc.
As a scientist this how I always read papers. It's how I was trained. Don't just read the results, read the paper and critique it - was the method appropriate? were control tests performed? is the statistical analysis sound? And even beyond that - if a substantial claim is made, it's assumed to be an anomaly until reproduced by others.
I will say that labs get a reputation. Well known labs with PIs who produce good science are usually treated with a more accepting view (i.e. this is probably true). Unknown labs are treated with a ton of suspicion.
This doesn’t negate your point, but I know someone who’s an "insider" in this particular scandal and sees it as a systemic problem. This researcher/scientist was very disturbed by this scandal after learning about it, and some of their colleagues feel similarly sickened. If you're a good person, it's pretty disturbing to learn that some of your peers would be willing to risk lives by running a trial based on intentionally faked data.