'Scientists' and 'Experts'

This is indeed true!
It is a fact well known to the tabloids who present us with studies on health, eating, archaeology, losing weight, evolution, sex, dementia, age and everything else presented by 'scientists.'  The fact that these studies may be taken out of context, have slanted opinons, contain little useful to the reader and are in opposition to 99 other similar studies makes no difference, the press offer them as fact.  The fact is supported by the word 'scientist.'
One problem with these studies, apart from the lack of comparison to similar studies, is the nature of the 'scientist' behind them.  Gay 'scientists' have a tendency to produce 'evidence' that supports their lifestyle, evolutionists fond 'evidence' that supports theirs, female scientists are constantly discovering 'how women suffer' yet never notice if men suffer at any time.  How unusual this is.
'Science' is merely an organised investigation into a subject whatever that subject may be.  Such investigation has given the modern world wonderful drugs that cure disease, technological advancements that enable me to sit in this small corner of the world misspelling words for you to read, investigated the hidden past in archaeology digs, and uncovered crimes hidden from the man in the street, science can indeed produce wonderful results.
However there is one fault in all this, the scientist!  
The problem with scientists is that they are human.  Now science lovers tell me scientists always go for the results that appear before them and get upset when I disagree.  I indicate that scientists like the rest of us ignore facts that do not agree with them and continue to seek facts that support their argument.  Thus many results are pushed aside and ignored until someone less biased discovers them.  Not so I am told, all scientists are noble people, caring and concerned for humanity.  Hmmm, I suppose 'scientists' who gave us poison gas, incendiary bombs and nuclear warheads were caring for their country at the time?  
We need not seek those scientists who took the credit for things others actually discovered nor the scientists pushed aside because they did not fit with the establishment of the day.  
What me cynical?

'Expert' are another one!  How often do you read of an 'expert' offering his opinion in  tabloid?  TV loves them also.  Any war in the offing and up jumps an 'expert' on war, sometimes a retired general, sometimes a university lecturer, often just a reporter with a view, good or bad, on the situation. 
The question 'How expert are the experts?' does not get asked, it is left to us to accept that because someone is at Cambridge University or a General or has studied the field they must be experts in that field.  But are they?  Again these folks have the same bias we have (I of course have none) the same influences affecting them and the same desire for fame and fortune that drive many onto the screen and into the press. 
There is no doubt we need 'scientists' and 'experts' though we all know such in our own live.  The 14 year old computer expert is a must in this world, the local electrician or plumber who will not charge the earth, the woman who knows all that goes on around her and all who are responsible for it and the 8 year old who can open 'childproof' bottles and tubs!  We need them all.  I am just a little cynical about the choice of experts in the media, usually it appears they are chosen from a small group known to the media, often sharing their opinions.  Not that I am implying bias in the media, oh no, they are all objective, however during the 'Up all Night' programme on Radio 5 last night I heard Rob and the chap he was talking to both claim this objectivity was not possible, well it isn't in the BBC that's for sure.