Well, it is not a surprise that scientists converge on a more singular idea. This is described in the Delphi method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ap77w8FKYM
where we see how people's minds are changed as they attempt to reach a consensus.
But, we should remember that consensus on an answer doesn't actually mean it is the right answer. It can be gamed - eg if you only choose scientists with a particular background to respond in the consensus seeking process. The selection of those inputting into the process needs to be free and open. If not, and you select opinions from one group only, eg mechanical engineers, or bacterial bioligists, you will get a very specific answer that reflects the bias of those partaking in the process.
FunFact: As an undergraduate at UCLA in the late 1960s, I answered an ad in the Daily Bruin (school newspaper) for people to participate in a survey.
It turned out to be located at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, where on Saturday mornings we participated in RAND's DELPHI project, which was instrumental in establishing that non-experts working as a group could produce estimates and predictions that were way more accurate than would be expected about subjects they knew little or nothing about.
But, we should remember that consensus on an answer doesn't actually mean it is the right answer. It can be gamed - eg if you only choose scientists with a particular background to respond in the consensus seeking process. The selection of those inputting into the process needs to be free and open. If not, and you select opinions from one group only, eg mechanical engineers, or bacterial bioligists, you will get a very specific answer that reflects the bias of those partaking in the process.