This discussion has been dormant for a few weeks, but I hope to resurrect it because I think it brings up an interesting point. I'd like to interpret the question slightly differently, rather than focus on peoples' opinions of scientists that interact directly with fields related to earth's shape and size, I'd like to know how people feel about scientists in general - particularly how they feel about the scientific community's approach to testing hypotheses, establishing a null hypothesis (I.e. assigning the burden of proof), and ultimately coming to a general consensus.
I'm a microbiologist and neuroscientist, my fields of study have nothing to do with the shape of the earth or employing technologies the depend on a known shape of the earth. However, being a scientist, I have training and experienced in forming hypotheses based on available data, testing hypotheses with observations and experimentation, interpreting data and assessing if data and my deductions support a hypothesis or not. I go into further length about this here (
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61407.0). Based on everything I said in that post, on how scientists view what it means to form hypotheses and test hypotheses and deduce a more accurate view of the world around us, this is why the scientific community sees no controversy over the shape of the earth. In my time, I have never once met another scientist of any field that considered the shape of the he earth to be a controversial matter, carful observation, systematic hypothesis testing, and generations of hypotheses built upon a mostly spherical earth have stood up to scientific rigger without fail. Indoctrination, a word that is commonly used on this forum, has nothing to do with forming and testing hypotheses, the rigorous interpretation of data will inevitably lead us to a better understanding of the universe, there may be detours along the way, but these detours do not last long.