nothing wrong with that. the way it should be, nothing arrogant there.
however, two caveats there also:
must be "real scientists". there're established canon of ethics and protocols, whoever not obey it must be purged out. misconduct investigation needs to be impartial and open to public scrutiny, if public funding or interests involved.
better channel between scientists and public. but most scientists either don't have time or are not good at PR, it's understandable and should be excused. the main part of this job lies on science reporters. i think at now it's the weakest link. many treat their jobs the same way as other journalists, i.e. public attention and hype as priority. this creates lots of public misunderstanding on scientific research.