http://www.gmoseralini.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Seralinial-AnswersCriti...

We have an article here in Scandinavia, called; never trust a scientist; a little googlish translation as this article is not published in english, highlights;

"UNUSED KNOWLEDGE is useless knowledge. Too few researchers participate in the public debate. Scientists remain happy at work and publish research that few people read. Also there is little doubt that there are a lot of good research that gets much less attention than deserved.
A journalist once said that it might be easier to walk on water than getting a researcher in speech. It could be tempting to write about why this is so..

THEME HERE is another phenomenon when it comes to communicating research: forward security and confidence. It can sometimes seem as if scientists have a monopoly on truth. But what comes from a scientist is hardly automatically true.

IT ALL GETS WORSE as it is often impossible to overrule the scientists' claims. Research can be complicated affairs, usually written in an internal tribal languages ​​and often based on complicated models with their own terminology. It can therefore be argued that in practice often not be reviewed by anyone other than a small group - that very few researchers in the same field of research.
Thus, it is generally such that a researcher's contention is accepted, even when it is wrong. There is not a more effective way to kill a discussion on to say: "Research shows that ..." - and then say something that supports one's point of view. No one can take it. To argue with a scientist is simply a game with uneven teams."

"Scientists solve a puzzle, but may not have all the pieces. The rest of the pieces must be added by others. If the image is to be completely filled, the experiential knowledge is as important as the research-based."
http://www.aftenbladet.no/meninger/kommentar/Stol-aldri-pa-en-forsker-3366732...