You may have misunderstood me. I am also a rational skeptic of science and scientists, and well aware of the fraud and errors there. Have you seen my criticisms of medical science?It was a response to your praise of the blanket virtue of scientists, their methods, and their high motives. The point is clear. I am a rational skeptic of science.
I am also aware of the misuse of science by ideologues.
Nevertheless, I do trust the scientific method which includes not just the methods in the laboratory or observatory (hypothesis, experiment, data collection and analysis, etc), but also the larger scale vetting process that turns a hypothesis into useful, reliable knowledge that can help predict and at times control nature.
This larger scale method includes the vetting that goes into determining what science gets funded, the peer review of papers generated by research and submitted for publication, the reproducing of results, the confirmation of predictions generated from such results, the generation of technology from those results that makes lives better, new and fruitful research suggested by such results, and even the test of time, during which multiple supporting papers are generated and redundant evidence is accumulated (such as DNA evidence supporting fossil evidence) while hundreds of scientists vie unsuccessfully for the recognition that comes from overturning accepted science, and during which time fraudulent results are identified and culled from the literature.
Science that has survived that is unassailable.
And, of course, it is a fallacious argument and a disservice to your nation to try to undermine trust in this larger science by pointing to frauds and other failures in the smaller steps. Papers fresh out of the laboratory shouldn't be considered valid science until they have passed this greater test.