Does the potential for being attacked on a science topic decrease your willingness to share your professional opinion in a public forum now and in the future?

I will only share my professional opinion to audiences that are interested in the topic or in case it's within the aim of a project, using the best tools

I've got 45 years of faculty experience and public speaking.  Why would I want to change now?  I can't wait to offer my opinion!!

See above

It does decrease my willingness, however I would not categorically refuse. All will depend on the media and context.

On an issue with a lot of active litigation going on, part of my decision to participate. Had to do with the knowledge that I will be retiring in a few years, so any damage done by these attacks would have limited impact on my long-term reputation and opportunities.

I am happy to be wrong and will acknowledge if someone with more knowledge on a subject can persuade me away from my current position.  But it has to be evidence based.

some scientists might feel reluctant to share their opinions on controversial science topics due to potential backlash. This could impact their willingness to engage in public discussions.

I take precautions and was once a potential target for the Uni bomber.  

I’m not going to pick a fight over my exiting the conversation. Has happened several times with Covid vaccine deniers. 

I should note that while the tools of science have been repeatedly removed from me, the love of searching the truth in science remained in me.  Since my forced retirement I have lectured and written on continuation of my original studies that were established at the University of Pennsylvania.  Since my retirement, I have published several articles and 4 books attempting to continue and extend aspects of my discoveries, by evaluation of reliable data and design of roadmaps into the complex immune neuroplasticity that were repeatedly interrupted. One example of continued harassment and censorship that I personally experienced is retraction of a comprehensive article that was published in 2020 (CTM).  It was an invited and peer reviewed publication and was scored as top 5% of all articles accessed soon after it was published. However, the publisher under pressure from members of organized medicine, RETRACTED the article without my agreement or any legitimate reason. 

As a scientist, we are familiar with heated discussions with those who disagree with our views, conclusions on results, etc. Our jobs require us to not take these disagreements personally. Therefore I don't fear the more difficult exchanges.

The scientific method is above reproach when used correctly by persons with a moral compass and a spine.

See my previous answer. Scientific evidence is essential and needs to be share, as this is the goal of our profession. 

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

I avoid public forum and social media to the further extent possible as I consider them "toxic". 

I will not yield my understanding of the science to anyone, but of course, as an open minded scientist, I certainly will listen to divergent views and reconsider my positions as appropriate.

Science-based opinions should never be withheld over fear of personal attack or criticism of one's position on how the science supports a particular regulatory position on important topics of exposure, risk and risk management.

Please see my response above.

I WOULD SAY THAT ATTACKS DONT DECREASE OUR WILLINGNESS, INSTEAD PREPARES US BETTER FOR DEFENDING OUR RESEARCH FINIDNGS IN THE PUBLIC FORUM. MOREOVER, WE GAIN A DIFFERENT PRESPECTIVE FOR OUR SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS. IN CERTAIN I HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE CRITICISM THAT HAS BEEN POUNDED ON MY FINDINGS HAVE PROVIDED ME WITH A NEW APPROACH TO ADDRESS THE STUDY LIMITATIONS. IT TAKES A WHILE TO GAIN THE TRUST OF THE REGULATORY BODIES AND POLITICIANS AS WELL AS PUBLIC, BUT ONCE WE HAVE GAINED THEIR SUPPORT, OUR RESEARCH ALSO GAINS MOMENTUM. 

I will happily tell anyone to try and silence me. Data will provide the answer.

Yes criticism is against human psychology. 

Now, I realize that he can tackle my future in this area, but I can build myself on another side.  

It helps that I am no longer in government. But I am a representative of the oil and gas industry, so the opportunities for public censure and vilification are almost infinite!

It depends on the litener. If one has respect for science and scientific professionals, I'll gladly share the knowledge

Hell, no! Let them come and get it.

see above

It will depend on how the political landscape changes and who is in charge of the purse. 

 I  am always been educated on positive discussions 

For so many years, I could not forget the incident.

In the neighborhood and community groups, I am willing to share what I know, hoping that thoughtful and concerned, citizens will take my unbiased opinion as one source in their decision making. I would be reluctant to represent a company in divisive scientific issues, because industry, scientists step onto the court 50 points behind.

Depends on the forum and whether or not the audience is objective

In a country where everything is under goventmet control, one should get on with the government.  Otherwise consequnces will be unbearable.   

See answer to question 3.

It depends upon the forum and whether speaking out is worth it or not.  

This is especially the case when the evidence is not conclusive. But, if it can potentially save a life or prevent damage, regardless of what attacks will be made, it's worth sharing. 

It depends on whether it would affect my reputation, job, or mental stability.