Recently, Yan Ning responded to the development of cryo-electron microscopy and certain negative comments circulating online. In a post on her personal Weibo account, she spoke highly of the significance of cryo-electron microscopy, whilst directly refuting the claim that ‘her field had been superseded, which is why she returned to China’, and criticised such views as reflecting a tendency to idolise foreign cultures. Her remarks were, as ever, direct and forthright; this style has won her many supporters, but has also made her a target of attack for some. In fact, these controversies reveal that some critics have not truly understood the research direction and achievements of Yan Ning and her team, yet are eager to jump to conclusions. Previously, Yan Ning’s team at the Shenzhen Academy of Medical Sciences, in collaboration with Tsinghua University, published significant research findings on glycan structures in *Science*. By integrating high-resolution cryo-electron microscopy, glycoproteomics and artificial intelligence modelling, they have advanced the study of natural glycan complexes to a level approaching atomic resolution. These solid scientific achievements are, in themselves, the most powerful response to the scepticism. For the general public, it may be difficult to participate directly in scientific research, but they can at least choose to view scientific progress with a more rational and open-minded attitude. Whether it be success or temporary setbacks, scientific research is, by its very nature, a process of continuous exploration. If one lacks professional knowledge yet criticises or even mocks scientists based on a one-sided understanding, this not only fails to help resolve the issues but may also undermine the overall research environment. In fact, a favourable public opinion climate is in itself a vital source of support for scientific research. In recent years, it has often been said that a favourable public opinion climate is an integral part of the development environment, and this holds true for the field of scientific research as well. Relevant policy documents also emphasise the need to foster an atmosphere throughout society that respects knowledge, values innovation, honours talent and cherishes science. Treating scientists and their achievements neither with excessive praise nor with unwarranted disparagement is, in fact, a fundamental aspect of scientific literacy. It is worth noting that there are an increasing number of scientists like Yan Ning, who are both young and accomplished and keen to express themselves on social media. This reflects that the new generation of researchers is more articulate and willing to engage with the public. They are no longer distant ‘ivory tower figures’, but people with interests and personalities just like ordinary people, who play video games, watch TV dramas or exercise in their spare time. This shift helps to bridge the gap between science and society. However, as scientists increasingly engage with the public, some people remain stuck in traditional stereotypes. For instance, there is a view that scientists should remain silent, focus on their research, and refrain from frequently expressing personal opinions. This perspective overlooks the highly interactive nature of today’s society and the rapid dissemination of information, whilst also underestimating the importance of science communication. In practice, an increasing number of research activities are being opened up to the public through live streaming and similar formats, enabling people to gain a more direct insight into the scientific research process. This openness serves not only as a means of popularising science, but also helps to enhance society’s understanding of cutting-edge technology and provides valuable insights for other sectors. At the same time, this transparency and interactivity reflect a social atmosphere that respects science and talent, and this atmosphere itself acts as a driving force for the advancement of scientific research. Furthermore, when discussing her choice to publish research findings on preprint platforms, Yan Ning candidly expressed some dissatisfaction with the academic peer-review system, citing instances such as having her work pre-empted and data issues in certain papers. Her forthrightness may not always be to everyone’s liking, but viewed from another perspective, a healthy research environment requires precisely such authentic voices. Only when problems are raised does the academic community have the opportunity to reflect and improve. Society, therefore, should encourage scientists to voice their doubts and grievances. Through open discussion, the scientific community can continually improve itself, whilst the wider public gains a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities of research. Through such interaction, not only does science advance, but the public’s scientific literacy is also enhanced.