He wants specific points he can work on.
We have a problem in that when a scientist/group releases a paper with significant new shit, it's peer reviewed and pondered by people in that field.
Now the author of that paper is pretty happy, but if he tried to tell people about it, anyone but his barber and wife would fall asleep because nobody understands it who doesn't work in that field.
Along comes his savior, the hero who will tell the world how he deserves praise. That is the trusty science reporter. Now our hero tells his hero all about his quest against great odds, and how he successfully destroyed the ring, and the deatheaters, and the commie guerrillas.
But our hero's hero is just one of the science reporters vying to find the biggest story because like the scientist they'll get published or perish. So he digs through his notes and tries to find something that will give his editor a boner. He might have to stress some of the lessor points, play up the finding it will kill some microbes, to it will kills all communicable diseases. And play down the important finding because it won't fire up the public.
So the science reporter gets another paycheck, the scientist doesn't want to say anything because he's pleased his boss. The Public gets fired up about the wrong thing which doesn't pan out and sours them on scientists, citing all the promises that didn't happen.
But cheer up Bunky, all is not lost. That report circulates the important findings within the field of science and more important findings through other fields. Other scientists use that information to build on in their research. Baby steps till that eureka moment when it all comes together. Science is not broken, but the respect and trust of science is, and that slows acceptance of the eureka moments.
Add to that certain people who would lose money if some discoveries are implemented. If they are unscrupulous they could influence misdirection and further mistrust. Really murdoch the waters and make it clear as mud but covers the ground.
The last player is a successful senior scientist, worked hard, won some accolades, made fellow or chair, the guy the papers call for comment. He's the one the papers say after his name, "who wasn't involved in the study". But now the papers are calling less and jr scientists aren't coming for advice and consent anymore. They're busy finding things he had overlooked in his work. But the people who want to murdoch the waters would put him back in the limelight, and assure comfortable golden years. All he has to do is express their opinion.
There are damn few provable facts in science, it's interpretation of evidence, opinions, theorems, logical conclusions, and best guess until there's more evidence. It's facts based on current knowledge. But it's foolhardy to ignore it. Stupid to not do things that may not help but we're sure won't hurt. If you don't believe it's right, cool, present your evidence. Saying I don't believe it because other things I was told(or thought that's what I was told) turned out to be not true, is totally dishonest.