(From Ted.Com Conversations) We have seen that throughout time science is not merely affected but driven by the political climates of the present era. There are the overt controls put on science inquiry through legal exigencies and funding of scientific endeavor. There are the less overt but still plausible constraints of industrial funding of scientific results and even less regarded but no less troubling restriction of dissemination of results. You can educate the inquisitive mind regardless of the preconceived notions. It is much harder to gain a skeptical inquiry and I would suggest that is a good thing.
Into this mix we add the near intransigent policies of journals and organs of dissemination that restrict through cultural controls the research of scientists. There is extensive literature that looks at the peer-review process and how it drives a group think instead of innovative agendas. This is not a rejection of the Karl Popper principles of falsification, or the Thomas Kuhn allusions to revolutionary concepts rejection by scientific establishments. This is saying that science is not perfect. The specter of perfection when cast on science is a shadow of the reality inherent in the falseness of the problems.
Consider the myriad political, cultural, economic, and taste issues inherent in the American diet corresponding with the legislative and industrial scientific processes. It would not be wild speculation to suggest that the scientific processes are impacted significantly when considering the various lobbies determining the direction of results, or the legal impediments to publishing results inherently counter to specific interests. This too is well documented. It would be a valid position for a person to be speculative of scientific results accorded the value of truth.