Yeah, there are so many directions we could go with this. It's something I think about a lot.

One sad thing is that the scientists who are most truth-motivated are often the least likely to pursue positions of political leadership or influence. So the ones you're most likely to hear on TV are often not the most trustworthy ones.

Another aspect is that scientists need to fight the social media battle, but they don't have time since they all have full time jobs as researchers and academics. I think "social media influencer" needs to become an acceptable career path that can still qualify as an "expert in the field". I think some people have managed to do it, like Veritasium and 3blue1brown, but they work in the least politically charged fields.

Speaking of politically charged fields, experts also need to allow social media influencers to question the consensus, within bounds. You can't just simply shut down all debate that doesn't fall into some narrowly defined band that is called consensus. What matters more is how the debate is conducted. And when you attack someone, attack their arguments, don't attack their credentials (at least, not exclusively.)

I think one problem I saw during COVID was that the "experts" would jump on and cancel anyone who questioned the prevailing narrative, even though their questioning was very reasonable and not at all crazy. When you start lumping people like Jay Battacharaya in the same camp as the people pushing ivermectin, it's no wonder people don't know who to trust!