Did the potential for being attacked on a science topic previously prevent or limit you from sharing your professional opinion in a public forum?

Depending on the audience, I try to avoid discussions

We are mainly dealing with science and religion.

I avoid providing in-depth information on social media, where all have access, on topics where I know people are not interested in facts but rather their opinions or religious beliefs. 

Due to this, I am now skeptical about which platform to attend.

I personally don't give a crap about what others say because my work/presentations rely on the primary research literature that I independently interpret and then communicate in accessible language/pictures.  In other words, my thinking is evidence based.  I am not a social media user, so f-em is my attitude.  

My job is optimize the performance of military personnel exposed to dangerous but nonetheless unavoidable situations.  I have and will continue to defend my position (which is based on FACTS rather than hysterical over-generalizations) to anyone.

Absolutely. Some attaks are brutal and require a lot of patience and and most likey a very good sence of pedagogy and science comunication expertise to defend science. As a expert we are diminish due to many wrong publicity from media.

I believe I am a highly qualified scientist, who understands the scientific method and am careful to explain that science is based only on the current state of knowledge and is subject to change as other experiments are carried out and further evidence becomes available.  Indeed the flexibility of science to be modified to fit new data is its essence.

I can understand that scientists might be hesitant to share their opinions due to the potential for backlash or attacks.

I am never afraid of telling the truth and have since talked about my opinions. 

No way. I and the educated will not stop advocating.

In 2009, I settled a number of legal cases, during a court hearing and agreed to retire from NCI/NIH with the condition to be treated as any other retirees. However, that did not happen!  The very first time that I attended an NCI board meeting, I was asked to leave by one of the handlers. On multiple other occasions, I was prevented to attend conferences that other retirees or public would attend, despite my prior registration.  

I retired from the government but not from the science that I invested my entire professional life to.  My deep desire to search the truth in science and to continue our pioneering studies that stood the test of time along with my devotion to work and help serve the public are reflected from my published articles and books after my retirement and despite lack of resources.  

It has not escaped me, and certainly those in decision making roles who spent $millions to prevent me from continuation of our pioneering studies, that if it were not for severe institutionalized discrimination, retaliation and intellectual harassment that were practiced against me for decades, my discoveries and continuation of originality/novelty of published articles and submitted proposals could earn me at least one Nobel Prize (correspondence with officials and policy makers). 

My research is not controversial so I do not fear being attacked.

I am a seasoned scientist who is fully capable of defending my opinion.

Scientific evidence speaks for itself. As a medical doctor I have witnessed the complications of COVID-19 in pregnancy, so I am / was convinced of the need to get the message out. 

I am holding back on commenting on an article because of political concerns.

No, because my area of research is not controversial. 

I adhere to the vision of my non-profit NGO: toxicology excellence for risk assessment

I've run into censorship over this, such as denial of peer-review for manuscripts I've submitted to certain journals.

You need to think once and twice over what you express in publications or when being interviewed.

I have to be sure that I have good arguments to be made. If I don't believe I can improve the publics' understanding, I don't speak up.

IN AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID THE EMBRASSMENT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC, I TEND TO CROP MY FINDINGS IN A PALATABLE WAY INFRONT OF THE PUBLIC BU STATING THE FACTS BUT NOT BEING TOTALLY TRANSPARENT. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO DO AS THE SCIENCE THAT I AM DOING IS BEING PAID BY THE TAX PAYERS MONEY. HOWEVER, A MILD UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCE BY THE POLITICIANS AND REGULATORS MIGHT MAKE US MORE TO GAIN MORE CONFIDENCE IN SHARING OUR FINDINGS AS WELL AS STUDY LIMITATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC. 

As a consultant serving differing clients, speaking out independently on some issues must be tempered by concern for possible unintended secondary consequences/fallout to clients.

I have withheld my opinion on obesity management many, many times.

Failure of hypothesis will lead you towards prevention in proactive thought.

This scientist told me that these results will affect my future. I felt afraid for a while. 

I became far more circumspect about where and how I shared my views. It helped that key cabinet officials in the Obama administration were supportive of our approach. 

Unfortunately in XXI century feeling matter more than facts. Sometimes euphemisms are distorting truth.

I avoid work on asbestos and have been extremely cautions in the realm of tobacco harm reduction and vaccines. 

Of course not. I am not scared easily and I usually pay back with interest.

The weight of truth is greater than the weight of being unpopular- however in some circumstances there is a potential threat to the future of my career for speaking out and thus discretion must be used. 

The main government institution tasked with financing scientific research in Mexico has explicitly written rules that scientists had receive government funding in government research institutes are forbidden of speaking out against policies or important people in the organization. This applies even in the face of data that needs to be shared to counter the government narrative. Backlash and even denied access to research funds is a very real outcome of expressing opinions. 

I  am always been educated on positive discussions

The incident generated lots of fear in me.

I avoided giving name of some municipalities and industrail facilities that contaimanite water resources by irresponsbiliy discharging their wastes, in my latest review article.  

During the COVID pandemic, it was sometimes difficult to openly share my opinion about vaccination to persons affiliated with the antivax movement. Recently, I have also felt more aggressive denial of climate change. In The Netherlands, there is also a very heated debate about certain environmental protection measures that affect a percentage of high-intensity farmers, the debate about this topic is also highly polarized and especially in rural areas it can be uncomfortable to voice scientific opinions publicly.

Despite the attacks that I have received, I have continued to speak out about my research activities. 

I have not yet personally encountered this.