...Are not necessarily the most trustworthy. Are they the smartest guys on earth? Not necessarily, but possibly. This does not make them trustworthy at all. Many people across the ages are held in high regard in their respective domains, but are not exactly good people. Descartes is one person I dislike - he believed animals were machines and treated his dogs badly. Prokofiev beat up his wife and had no table manners. Similarly, smart people are not necessarily trustworthy.
One class of people who are more trustworthy than others is, I think, scholars well-versed in the Confucian classics.
To say that scientists are the most trustworthy group on the planet is naive and madness in itself. To me, scientist are the most naive and childlike group on the planet. It is also for this reason that I want to become one. Scientists refuse to believe that we have discovered everything (needed or not) and will continue to pursue the answers to their questions, even if all that it will bring is more questions and destroy the establishment of past beliefs.
This naivety and childishness is also why scientists make mistakes. Not the small ones that where you broke that test tube or have that hydrogen blow up in your face, but rather gruesome examples like Agent Orange, Hiroshima, and many others. The scientist may have invented something for a good purpose, but it can always be weaponized and misused. Scientists rarely have the power to control this. And plus, scientists always believe in probability and pursue that with greater likeliness of achieving their goals. It depends on the individual themselves. One scientist might not care less about general ethics because to him the one with the best outcome is ethical. But a random scientist might care.
In conclusion, never take a politician's words without a grain of salt. That applies to political scientists as well.