I'll tell you why. I read clickbait about molecular biology when I was a teenager (quite some time ago) and ended up thinking that biology was far more advanced than it really is. it took me decades of training to understand that publicly, scientists are more optimistic and likely to overstate the quality and applicability to their results. It would have helped me a lot if the original articles about gene therapy had said "this is a very risky technology and it's likely it will never be approved because people are terrified of side effects"
Yes. I'm a slow learner, and basically the entire training system makes it hard to recognize just how juiced biology scientific communications are. There are legitimate subfields, and journals that aren't as bad as Nature. I mean if you want to be a successful scientist you have to practice some level of reality distortion to make progress.
I also didn't expect nearly all gene therapy would be stopped for over a decade due to a single patient dying in a trial in 1999: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gelsinger
That sort of educated me ot the fact that people take some medical risks really seriously (OH GOD EGGS HAVE CHOLESTEROL) and others they completely ignore/downweight (like Flu).
