What if the evidence is deemed offensive by a mob because they don’t like the scientific findings?
Or what if the scientist has personal beliefs or opinions that are disagreeable to some?
And what if the evidence is politically toxic?
Or what if the scientist has personal beliefs or opinions that are disagreeable to some?
And what if the evidence is politically toxic?
This is pretty much the history of science. It is full of instances where new findings were rejected by society at large.
I get the impression that you're trying to make some point about the environment today, but pushing against societal inertia is pretty much built into the idea of doing science. it's always been that way, and will continue to be that way until people are basically willing to put their ego on hold and consider something without judgement.
The universe is what it is regardless of what we think of it. When we attain better understanding of the truth of things, we need to adapt to the truth. It is literally insane to do otherwise.
Fortunately, we are also part of the universe, so better understanding also grants us tools to change things more to our liking.
Because the public is not scientific, and scientists generally rely on explicit or at least tacit approval of the public to do their work.
That depends on who the mob is voting for.