Scientists must be given trust, not authority

Experts cannot compel civic engagement, and they must accept that their advice, which might seem obvious and right to them, will not always be taken in a democracy that may not value the same things they do. The job of mediating those values and policies lies with elected officials, not with scientists or other experts. The knowers cannot—and in a constitutional republic, should not—be the deciders.

At the same time, experts cannot withdraw from a public arena increasingly controlled by opportunistic demagogues who seek to discredit empiricism and rationality. Instead, the expert community must help to lead laypeople, who find the modern world intimidating and even frightening, back along the road to a better day when the citizens of the United States valued scientists and other professionals as essential parts of the American story. Experts must continue, as citizens, to advocate for those things they believe to be in the public interest, but the most important role they can play is defend a stark but empathetic insistence on science and reason as the foundation for public policy.

Indeed. But this will not help much unless experts advice is generally considered trustworthy : that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for following expert advice. Which in turn depends on how that information is communicated and disseminated :
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2016/09/would-i-lie-to-you.html

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-does-the-public-rsquo-s-view-of-science-go-so-wrong/