Do you believe that attacks on scientists for sharing their professional opinion has the potential to curb the advancement of science?

They may influence some politics to decrease the funds for science

Advancement of science is in the hands of politicians and not directly the general public.

Advancement of science depends on grant funding and mentoring excellent graduate students/post docs (who actually do all the work!).  The rest is just noise in the social sphere.  

It has a profound effect.

Let's take the hysteria over pain medications and benzodiazepines for an example.  Many physicians (and others) are now afraid of trouble from the FDA and professional organizations for their appropriate utilization of these medications despite the fact that there are patients who genuinely need them.  My assumption is that scientists are also hesitant to propose new R&D efforts on these medications because they are afraid of the administrative hassles and potential political blow-back.

Absolutely. the attacks increase a fear and untrust of scientists. A very sad experience is happening nowadays with a decrease in vaccination, an increase in non scientifically recognise fields (homeopathy etc)

Absolutely! Yes! It may deter young people from becoming scientists or affect their areas of study to stay out of controversial topics...

Particularly political and religious interference in science.

Yes, attacks on scientists for expressing their professional opinions can potentially hinder the advancement of science. Such attacks may create an environment of fear and self-censorship, discouraging open discourse and the free exchange of ideas. This can impede the progress of research and innovation by limiting the exploration of new concepts and hypotheses.

In most cases, but it will stop science if there is government (local or national) that legislates against scinetific processes. 

Depends on the individual determination and grit of the scientist. 

Eight decades of continued taxpayer's support for research and therapy to NIH amount to $trillions, particularly for cancer research and therapy.  However, 'war on cancer' has outcome failure rates of 90% for solid tumors, loss of millions of precious lives and economic toxicity to society.  A major factor in repeatedly failed projects is lack of diversity in decision making roles associated with severe attack on independent, highly competent and devoted scientists. Many examples of con-games, deceptions and lies that are routinely practice by members of organized medicine demonstrate that decision makers have pulled out every trick in the book, in order to cling to their absolute power that absolutely corrupted science, destroyed public health and caused economic toxicities to the society. They silence and censor voices of competent and devoted professionals who desire to be included in decision making roles and to effectively serve the public.   Authorities in governments, academia and Big pharma promote medical educational programs and enhance illogical and reductionist approaches to science that repeatedly failed the public.  Physicians-scientists in charge of expensive projects, routinely ignore medical ethics or conflicts of interest by accepting consultation fees and honoraria and lecture on behalf of drugs-vaccines dealers who sponsor and organize continuing medical education programs. As detailed elsewhere, current regulations and demands for over-vaccination of the unborn/newborn, infant or individuals who are immune compromised, most likely are the causes, exacerbations and consequences of disease-status and drug-dependency of the young and old in the 20th century, particularly in America. 

There has always been those who disagree with science. I would worry that this would prevent the advancement if the funding bodies were influences by any of the negative views.

The will to fight the mob alone can be disruptive.  The mob can ruin a career.

It does have the potential that scientists do not dare to share their results and opinions (in public). 

Science (and society more broadly) should engage in open discussion.

Particularly in climate science and, more recently, vaccines. This is driven by right wing rhetoric.

The greatest threat to the progress of science is the potential influence of political and corporate interests on science policy and funding. Regrettably, mechanisms such as competitive funding overseen by governmental bodies and private foundations are susceptible to direct biases stemming from political and corporate agendas.

Of course.  Everyone seems smart enough to weigh in on toxicology.  Quite amazing.

scientist may tend to conform to the mainstream regardless of its basis

This is the very unpleasant side of being a scientist engaged in contentious regulatory actions and some scientists prefer not to endure this type of treatment.

Research is inherently critical. If some of that critical stance is reduced, less innovative research results will emerge.

If attacks grow from politicians and others in charge of grants, I think it could have an impact.

IT HAVE BEEN OBSERVED EVERSINCE THE BEGINING OF THE HUMAN EVOLUTION, THAT AS AND WHEN THEIR HAVE BEEN HINDERANCES IN THE GROWTH OF THE SCIENCE, SCIENCE HAS ALWAYS COME OUT VICTORIOUS. SCIENCE BEING DYNAMIC AND EVERY PROGRESSING WITH INCREASING KNOWLEDGE BASED ON TECHNOLOGY AND TOOLS, ALWAYS STAYS OPENMINDED TO ACCEPT AND REJECT A NEW FINDINGS BASED ON RATIONAL AS WELL AS PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE. BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIENCES, I HAVE OBSERVED THAT ATTACKS ON SCIENTIST HAS NEVER PREVENTED THE GROWTH OF SCIENCE AND INSTEAD IT HAS BOLSTERED THE STRENGTH AND CONFIDENCE OF THE SCIENTIST TO PUSH THE LIMITS FOR ATTAINING THE UNATTAINABLE. 

Attacks on scientists holding positions on controversial but important issues of science only the inhibit the broader scientific community from best understanding where the critical issues (and their potential resolution) reside. 

Data will silence the ignorant.

The failures will not come in front of others so they would not be able to decrease their efforts.

Before this happens, he was saying publicly that I am a talented scientist that can bring new ideas. 

Science is the ultimate expression of democratic process (in its purest forms, of course). But when science becomes a critical foundation for making major public policy choices, it needs to be mediated, legitimated, and positively supported by those in power. Deferring to good science is not the same has "hiding behind" science to make hard choices in the public sphere. I have seen both. But as a public official with a science background, I have always tried to take opportunities to talk about why science matters, how the scientific process works, and why expression of scientific opinion (as opposed to personal opinions that sound like science) is critical to our ability to make good choices on behalf of the public. 

Again, an imprecise question. Define the nature of attack first. A vehement verbal argument is not an attack even is often labeled as such. An angly mob of religious zealots attacking libraries, universities and research centres, and burning scientists on the stake, definitely yes. 

In scientific expertise and opinion is blocked, policies and actions can be enacted that have the potential to cause irreparable damage to people or the environment, all of which sows mistrust in science as part of the development of society. 

I think science is based also on the connection and sharing of different opinion in a positive and stimulating way, so not doing it but contrasting the share of other peer professional opinion do curbe the advancement of science

The same thing can happen to all others and also happening. It's not good for the Scientific community.

Parallels can be drawn with politics, where the aggressive climate is forcing more and more politicians to reconsider their priorities. I am extremely concerned that this will become a serious issue in science in the near future, and it may even become more significant once the economic benefits of climate change denial are abused by certain governments or large companies to support their commercial agenda.

In the US today, it is just a matter of time until violence is brought upon scientists and the medical community as a result of what they go public with. 

Scientists are people too. When the attacks are too personal and the community is unsafe in handling potentially controversial/dissenting opinions, knowledge sharing and discourse is unlikely to happen.