Transparency in science? That's what the peer review process and the publication of papers is all about. The data is laid out for all to see and critique. It often leads to scientific advances. There are no secrets.
It's unfortunate that you chose climate science as your example. There's no question that much remains to be learned about Earth's climate, and also about why it's changing. To equate the two sides of the climate change discussion, though, when one side engages in ethical scientific practices and the other does not, is part of the problem here.
Honesty and integrity should count for something. Right now, they often don't.
The loudest voice is the moneyed voice. When industry feels threatened by climate regulations, when the health insurance business feels threatened by the promise of affordable healthcare, when gun manufacturers feel threatened by anything which might effect profits, they buy votes, exposure and influence public opinion in a fraudulent manner. Fraudulent, because they never reveal their true motives.
I don't know why people have a low opinion of the medical profession in the United States (assuming that the poll is accurate.) But it's possible it's because they feel they're being gouged and taken advantage of. You yourself have expressed strong opinions on the matter, and my sense is that you're among the privileged who are able to afford proper medical care. Imagine the feelings of those who cannot (an additional four million of them since the Republicans passed their budget.)
Nobody should die because they cannot afford healthcare. In the United States, it happens every day of the week.