Do Scientists and Experts Have An Obligation To Air Their Reputation-Harming Ideas Anonymously?

I would argue that that they do, and the barriers to be able to do so have never been lower. Do you have a reputational stake in being against investing social security funds in the stock market, but you think it would actually improve the fiscal solvency of the program? Do you have a reputational stake in opposing stem cell research, but you think it will actually help save your life? Do you have a reputational stake in opposing cryonics, but you privately have an Alcor membership? Share these ideas anonymously, you lose nothing in terms of reputation, but you gain (as do I) in adding weight in the public discourse moving us all towards more rational policies, particularly those that will reduce existential risk, but which sometimes come with reputational costs to take public positions on them.