It is very good that the general public is less believing in science.
I remember well when the public was very believing, including me, and in hindsight it was always undeserving of such faith.
It was a very misguided thing to take a conclusion as fact, so long as it be called “science”, for often upon closer inspection the methodology was dubious, and it was never attempted to be reproduced, so even if the methodology were sound, the data could either be a fluke, or outright fabricated.
This is not a new development; if anything, the critical stance is the new development. It has been going on for centuries most likely that completely fabricated data stoot the test of time because no one bothered to replicate it. When I was at university in the 2000s, we were already told of respected researchers that fell from grace as it was found they had been fabricating data for decades and it took this long for someone to catch wind of it, as no one bothers to replicate research in this world.
The only new development is that now, some are starting to.
“Science” is not enough to believe it; the methodology must be inspected and found to be salient, and the data must have been replicated at least once, præferably more, by another independent group.