I'd argue that absolutely nothing "happens" when the public loses confidence in academic findings, and honestly the public should generally butt out of the entire process. It's not written for them, it's not discussed by them in any rigorous way, their input is not valued or noted, and generally they're completely wrong in very basic ways.
Should academic research be done in secret or in a way that actively prevents the public from accessing their results? No. Should we disabuse ourselves of the notion that the public matters to this process? Yes.
None of it matters to the lives of nearly anyone until it's gone through many, many layers of filtering. We, the public, ought to let that filtering play out, rather than meddle in the process
Should academic research be done in secret or in a way that actively prevents the public from accessing their results? No. Should we disabuse ourselves of the notion that the public matters to this process? Yes.
None of it matters to the lives of nearly anyone until it's gone through many, many layers of filtering. We, the public, ought to let that filtering play out, rather than meddle in the process