Wetpixel welcomes members to voice their opinions in open discussions. However, facts aren't the same as opinions. I merely asked for clarifications on Skyler's assertions etc. The scientists you mentioned merely disagree with the methodology of Ocearch, but do not disapprove of the data. That distinction indicates a philosophical disagreement more than a scientific lambasting of OCEARCH data, which is how I read Skyler's post as.
As for scientific research, I suppose GWS are popular research subjects because of the Jaws fame and killer image. Funding is more readily available. However, I do remember reading other species of shark were tagged as well, during the Sharkmen series. Furthermore, I will not assume that just because a scientist is in front of a camera often and having "success" means they don't care about the species. As far as I know, the ones I know care a lot, but stay scientists first. It's not mutually exclusive.
The truth is while discovering new species of walking sharks in Indonesia may be wonderful, the public interest doesn't quite share the same excitement as marine biologists. Scientific research is good for several things, one of which is understanding the natural world for knowledge. Conservation work also requires scientific data, without which no agency or government will ever ratify. Look at all the work that went into the recent CITES listings, not just the obvious work but the behind the scenes stuff.
Daniel summarized this discussion rather eloquently. Research tends to have collateral damage in mortality/injuries and the Ocearch methodology is edited to present "good TV." Are the two mutually exclusive? Is it forever intertwined because of the corporate funding? In a world where funding for unpopular research is lacking, maybe the trickle down effect is the only way through.