How would you best describe your personal confidence in the scientific community?

A great deal of trust (26%) – "I have my PhD, I've been in the world of academia, and I understand the pressure to publish papers. However, there are so many scientists that are in it for the science. They are conducting research at such a high level because they are passionate about their work and the results of their research. There are a few bad eggs, but that doesn't mean we should distrust the whole scientific community."

• "Just like with any information, it is up to the reader to determine the trustworthiness of a paper. If you are doing your own research, you ought to know that the author is reputable not just assume they are because the paper showed up in a Google scholar search. The main issue is that we have too many career academics who chose academia out of fear of competition in the private sector within their field. This leads to an influx of people who would rather do what’s needed to keep their job instead of actually making significant contributions to their fields. We need to start pointing our fingers at the people instead of the systems. For example, emails are inherently good but people choose to create spam and scam emails. The problem isn’t that people are tempted to do this, it’s that the people themselves have moral shortcomings."

"Science, done properly and ethically, can always find the truth (whether or not it is the answer that is expected is another story). But science-deniers and conspiracy theorists will never find the truth. Any "evidence" they provide will always be twisted to fit a view they already have."

An average amount of trust (41%) – "I have a masters in biology and am a published author. There is some great research being done by great scientists but adding to this culture is the speed in which research is expected and the quality of peer review being done by many journals."

• "I used to trust it far more than I do now, just as I used to trust the news more than I do now. I think that in addition to workplaces putting pressure on scientists, pharmaceutical companies also play a role in this. They often want to get the drugs out at any cost. Additionally, special interest groups will fund many studies, which I think compromises the legitimacy or promotes doubt in the findings. That said, I do still trust specific peer-reviewed sources, and I haven't lost all faith in our research, I've just become a bit more skeptical."

"Having published my own research in peer-reviewed journals, I can vouch that many individuals in the scientific community are normal people who are generally honest and trying their best. The problem is that the incentives to publish drive individuals to try and publish a large amount of papers as quickly as possible. This obviously leads to people spending less time than they might otherwise and can lead to desperate actions like cutting corners and even making up data."

• "I think part of doing good science is having skepticism and wanting a demonstration of evidence. Therefore, while I think scientific research is important and often trustworthy, I think it demands a healthy level of skepticism."

Little or no trust (21%) – "I've been keeping abreast of the publishing world for a couple of years now and it seems like every other month some high profile scandal rocks a lab or university, generally related to falsified data, claims, or research. I'm also aware of the sheer volume of government sponsored theft (the Thousand Talents program), the environment that encourages a crab-in-a-bucket mentality, and conferences rife with horrible behavior. There are a lot of good, honest scientists toiling in labs and academia out there, but they aren't the ones who make headlines."

• "Evidence that scientists in nutrition, pharmacology and technology has come forward reporting that they are actively bribing orgs like the FDA in order to push products (food pyramid, anyone.) "The science is settled" has become the buzz-sentence to stop all challenges, especially from people without Ph.Ds but with common sense. I trust them as much as I trust the government."

Unsure/other (12%) – "People need to take what they read, scientific or not, with a grain of salt. I've worked in research before and I know firsthand how tempted researchers can get to fudge data, add false data points, delete data that doesn't support the hypothesis, or just generally use the data they have to present a conclusion or spin a viewpoint that isn't fully accurate. If you take the posture that all science is mostly false, you miss out on good research. Conversely, if you believe all science is mostly true, you're led down a path of deception. The rock and hard place is that average people don't have the time or resources to verify what is and isn't accurate, so their only option is to take a best guess on how true something is based on their own experiences when the scientific community comes out with new findings on different topics."