That is an important point.
Not long ago, I heard "America's Scientist" Neil deGrasse Tyson say to Ben Shapiro that if a scientific pursuit appears to work against a progressive social policy, then that scientific pursuit should be abandoned. Shapiro and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. He believes science should be politically curtailed.
More recently, Neil deGrasse Tyson was speaking to comedian Bill Maher. Maher bemoaned that stand-up comics can't go to college campuses anymore because students are too easily offended. Tyson remarked that a comedian should take stock of what offends his audience and write his comedy so that it does not offend the audience. Maher and I both said, "What?" and Tyson repeated it for clarity. So, Tyson not only believes science should be curtailed for politics, but that free speech itself should be curtailed for politics.
Tyson, who is holding the biggest microphone in the scientific community, has no problem saying these things publicly and even repeating them for clarity. That suggests to me that such an attitude is not uncommon in his circles, or he'd be more circumspect about saying it out loud.
I've long known that big money buys the scientific "results" big money wants. That's been clear since the "cigarettes are healthy" era. We have to face that fact that political fealties also result in the scientific "results" that politics wants.
What does the science say? You don't know!