The scariest thing about this? It's published in the journal Molecular Brain - a medical journal. Professional scientists game the system with lousy papers, taking attention and money away from legitimate papers. They do this for exactly the reason you would think - to divert that attention and funding to them, to help their careers.
I've written repeatedly about this problem (most recently here, perhaps the earliest here). And this only covers plain old grifting; politicized science like Global Warming is another elephant in the room. I had a long post ten years back about pushback from scientists against scientists who played fast and loose:
Eschenbach has been at the center of the Climate debate - specifically the Freedom Of Information Act requests:I made the request to CRU because I was disgusted with the response of mainstream climate scientists to Phil Jone’s reply to Warwick Hughes. When Warwick made a simple scientific request for data, Jones famously said:Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?When I heard that, I was astounded. But in addition to being astounded, I was naive. Looking back, I was incredibly naive. I was so naive that I actually thought, “Well, Phil’s gonna get his hand slapped hard by real scientists for that kind of anti-scientific statements”. Foolish me, I thought you guys were honest scientists who would be outraged by that.
Eschenbach is the person who filed the Freedom Of Information Act request for the CRU's climate data that led to the ClimateGate ("Hide the decline") leak. Sadly, nothing has changed much.So I waited for some mainstream climate scientist to speak out against that kind of scientific malfeasance … and waited … and waited. In fact, I’m still waiting.
So no, you shouldn't trust scientists, at least until you can assure yourself that they're not self-dealing.