If you said yes to #5, what are some potential tactics that you recommend be used to overcome this curb on the advancement of science? (free text)

1. Boost Funding: Increase financial support from governments, private entities, and philanthropists to drive research and development.
2. Foster Collaboration: Encourage interdisciplinary teamwork for fresh perspectives and faster innovation.
3. Open Sharing: Promote open access to research data and findings to speed up progress.
4. Ethics and Efficiency: Balance ethical considerations and regulations to avoid stifling innovation.
5. Inclusive Teams: Cultivate diversity, aid early-career researchers, and incentivize breakthroughs for swift scientific advancements.

Start early, start young, start with responding positively to the natural curiosity of children. Then stay curious yourself. Be kind, but never lose the questioning edge when engaged with the policy world. Offer to educate; don't talk down or pontificate. Ask questions, modeling the kind of behaviors you'd want to see non-scientists demonstrate. Look for effective envoys and translators. Learn from the great science communicators, such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Anthony Fauci, Jane Goodall, et al.

Invite politicians and policy makers to symposia and colloquia that are deliberately designed to engage the science and the policy. Embrace the "naive" questions that public figures have, and show them how to translate those questions into researchable questions. Science can intimidate (smart people can intimidate, no matter what), so learn how to communicate without "dumbing down." Share the questions, not the answers. Non-scientists get excited when their own questions are at the edge of what we know.

Help the public and particularly politicians and policy makers understand how scientists actually work, and how science and discovery are often based on serendipity and accident. We often find the answer by making mistakes. There's often a lot of very smart fumbling at the root of many scientific discoveries. Help politicians understand that uncertainty is the foundation of good science. And finally, if you could force somebody to read a single book, it should probably be Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

hard money tenure is the only protection, and culture in science (esp. among administrators that values truth-seeking over political correctness. both of these are increasingly rare, hence the rise of the effectiveness of attacks on scientist.

If possible, offer countering positions through peer-reviewed publications describing new and/or other data supporting a positiion. Consider using forums sponsored by professional societies or letters to the editor of scientifc journals. Work with professional societies to organize or participate in public sessions discussing positions.

In my case, strengthening anti-defamation laws would have possibly averted some of the attacks. Requiring the media to return to the doctrine that required the presentation of pro and contrary opinions, and their basis, from the scientists of a study in question.

Institutions have to commit to support researchers by including this in their mission and vision. In addition, government agencies have to commit to defend researchers against attacks on scientists assigning resources to do this.

Personal attacks on scientists and their families are achieving the attackers' goals of silencing those of us not willing to put our families at risk. These attacks should be investigated and prosecuted as hate crimes to allow for fighting against the various misinformation campaigns.

It's hard isn't it. The media and exposure that people have throughout their lives spreads a lot of misinformation, which is one issue. The other issue is that people should just not be attacked - respectful dialogue. How do you encourage (force?) people to be more respectful? This is a society problem, a global problem, a parenting problem maybe. . . ? I don't think we can stop it unfortunately.

Better science education in K-12 school, less divisive rhetoric from politicians and the media making it sound like science is just opinion and scientists are out to do harm.

Scientists who care about the subject should come together and express themselves.

We need to learn to share our knowledge and opinions in a convincing and persuasive way. It's also about our attitude. It's not about "us" and "them". After all it's our common problems that we need to solve.

More protection on the side of government and politician, trying to cultivate independent and honest media space, education from eary age of importance of science

No thought of science should be given in public until it is having great impact or having almost zero side effect to any thing. Instead the final outcome should be revealed taking all the administration into confidence.

Publication of negative results.

Tactics:
We need to know the source of the threat,
We should have honest critics and a diversified partners,
We should be transparent about financial sources and also know where policy starts.

Just do your job with the highest quality and openness

Oh yes of course! Gamification of science in pre-school, middle-school and high-school. Increase accessibility of science, through Open Source and Open Access policies.

Just stay firm in your opinion and justify all conclusions

Outreach & Public relations for the topics can help when the outrage is based in mythology. The first key is to address the outrage by identifying and either modifying the cause (ie, dislike of the approach - replacing animal work with NAMs), or educating (there are no fetuses in the vaccine). It can be especially challenging when the outrage is based on false information from an Authority ("I saw on TV that.../My [politician] said..."), as this individual is not open to conflicting information from a stranger, or the individual is a well-educated scientist leveraging simplified or reductionist thinking. In some cases, I think it is appropriate to pause research in a specific area if the general public is very unhappy or upset with some unchangeable aspect of it, even if it means sacrificing potential life-saving treatments.

Increased awareness and public engagement.

Enforce a high and impenetrable wall between political power and religion. If there needs to be bloodshed, so be it.

- critical thinking skills should be incorporated into the education system from a young age (grade school)
- proper debate and discussion skills should be taught at all ages and enforced in public spaces, allowing for the encouragement of self expression while allowing for proper guard rails to protect individual safety and integrity

Anonymous whistleblowing, opinion pieces in news or media from outside the country, join organizations that can protect expression rights.

I sent some letters of lawyers to the Editors of journal who wanted my articles (already accepted by reviewers and the Editor himself ) retracted.

Do not be afraid in sharing our professional opinion, when it is based scientific results that come from a well done research
Do not be afrain in thinking that maybe other professionals may have different opinions which can may be better than yours

1. Stay bold, Protest against it.
2. Make strong decisions, don't let others utilize you for their own benefit.
3. Complain against them to the higher authority.

One way to combat attacks on science is to promote science education and literacy among the general public. This can help people better understand the scientific process and the value of scientific evidence, and can help counter misinformation or conspiracy theories that are often used to attack scientists

Scientists should always be willing to speak out on their factual, evidence-based opinions. Some of the best examples of scientific advancement come from open debate among scientists with differing views. Ideally, media outlets would give even hand to reasonable arguments from any side of an issue.

Choose carefully alliances

This may well be the largest challenge the scientific community will be facing in our lifetime. It is probably more of a strategy than a tactic, but I believe global collaboration is required to address this issue. Through institutions such as the e.g., the UN or the OECD, the topic can be put on the political agenda of countries around the world. I believe that national and international policies are required in order to fix the increasingly aggressive climate. It may also be vital to penalize attacks on scientists and the sharing of fake news and pseudo-science. Politicians and high-profile opinion makers should structurally and pro-actively condemn attacks on science and scientists.

Know the audience and judge whether or not revealing information is of value to you.

Promote science communication to the public and educate people on how science work and the research process.

The attacks should be redirected to the situation and topic at hand and not the person. It's important to set a tone for healthy discourse depending on the platform and at some point choose the right platform where to disclose opinions. The latter is more for the discretion of the scientist. But, it's always share inputs to a committed group of people who agree to provide a conducive space where healthy discourse can be done and definitely, no ad hominem.

Ignore ignorance. Educate rather than argue.

Try to engage with the attackers and imbibe some sense and rationale in arguments.

Organized protection of scientists

Not to be intimidated. Alway continues with your work. Be confident while discussing your findings.

The scientists should politely but firmly explain the reasons