Yes, there are entities who abuse science. Thankfully, the entities you mention are mere corporations and not religious agencies. Otherwise, it would have taken far longer to extricate ourselves from the quagmire.
With preordained conclusions? One of the things that good scientists need to do is not tint their findings by social concerns..
I used to think that scientists were impartial and would simply go where the evidence leads them. I placed them in direct contrast to politicians who will distort and bend the truth as it suits their needs. The 'scientific discipline', I thought, is a wonderful, logical, unemotional endeavor, and I admired it.
I have to say that the more I now read about science, the less I believe this.
Example:
"And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?
"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.
Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.
"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."
Full story:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.htmlBlacknad.
