Let's try to this on the process of science creation not its content especially.

Scientists are only human. They have their biases and limits of ability. A lot of scientific investigations are bought rather than funded by companies, government and organisations. So there needs to be a system to place a partition between the funder and the scientist and choose the scientist on ability and ethics. So what sort of system?

its all community property

[knowledge..belongs to living people
not dead corperations...thus should not able to be controled
[for proffit,..by dead corperations for them to control..indefinatly]

like chemical industries
suppressing info that gives cures,
[not just treats symptoms..for life..at huge cost]

lets face it we either share knowelwedge
or hide it for some secret reason

no secret should be allowed to remain secret forever
even pay/honour.. people for discovery..
or corperations..

but..allowing all to have a fair share
we only communicate by word..because we can use or change them

[no man is an island]
we [the people]..educated you
we the people deserve a fair share of the fruits

stop giving govt nmoney
to private for proffit..[or huge wage]..by govt gift
to huge multinational organisations..seeking exclusive licence for ever longer time's..[patent has been extended yet again]

corperations shouldnt be allowed to 'own'..patent
longer than the inventer..and the susstem that created the invention

The way this is done is by peer review.
A scientist who claims to have discovered something new publishes his/her experiment and results in a reputable journal.
Getting past the editorial board is the first checkpoint.
Once published then other scientists may repeat the experiment to see if they acheive the same outcome.
This works well; and has done for more than a century. But, as you say, scientists are human.
There is questionable research where one could draw a line from funding source to outcome. But, generally, it either doesn't get published in a reputable journal or it's quickly attacked by other scientists and found wanting.
On problem we face is that the media will often sensationalise what appears to be a dramatic research finding, (it gets heaps of attention, naturally), but when the contradictory research is published, (often less controvesrial), it gets little attention.
A recent example of this is that a few weeks ago, a paper was published describing an experiment that appeared to show particles exceeding the speed of light. A complex piece of research but the authors couldn't figure out what was going on. The publicity was substantial. However, when another group repeated the experiment and didn't get the same result, the publicity was faint.
But, sans the media involvement, this was an example of the system working very well and effectively advancing science.
It helps to remember what consitutes a theory. An hypothesis, to become a theory, must allow for predictions to tbe made, for those predictions to be tested and the results must always be the same. If there is a case where different results are achieved then the theory must be abandoned or modified.
Having said all that, it is true that we do see "scientists" who, while funded by tobacco companies argued that smoking did not cause cancer, and now, while funded by fossil fuel lobbies argue against global warming.
One solution could be that all research when published, must have all the funding sources disclosed.
Many reputable science journals already do this.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

IF
If we had no science we would not know the earth is round, about the planets, we would not have cured so many disease's.
Not walked on the moon looked at the DNA of us and animals.
We see people all over the world worshiping God, 3 off whom came via the one book written by men.
Few question, even understand men wrote them.
But we question science.
Well no we basically do not, we teach one thing practice another Evolution/Creationism.

We must address this question, if you wanted to cast doubt, even if you believed, in some thing.
Could you do better than craft a post just like our threads authors first one hear?
While I welcome the author, I see in that post the perfect start to putting doubt in to minds on any controversial subject, and reject it.

Just a little problem there Anthonyve, your peer review has broken down completely.

Once you get governments in there wanting a certain result from the "research" they have funded, it doesn't work too well. Group think, & greed get in the way.

Then we get your so called "reputable journals" publishing stuff, where much of the detail is with held, or hidden.

When you get peer review done by other members of a working group, beholden to the same funding body.

When you get public funded research claimed by the researcher as private, & locked out of the public sphere.

When you get researchers discussing ways to avoid freedom of information legislation, to keep their secret workings secret, it's all a bit much.

In fact it has totally broken down any time government has an objective, & funding, & greedy "scientists" willing to prostitute themselves for that funding. Climategate 2.0 anyone?

Belly that looks like an avoidance of the question. It is government control of funding that is in question, in the thread, & how the large finger of funding can be removed from the results of research.

Any time the government & the public are walking the same path it works, change direction by one, & corruption comes in damn quick.

I agree with Belly's comment.
Much of the criticism we see in these comments shows a misunderstanding of the scientific process.
Also we live in a time when science is confronting us with inconvenient truths, global warming being the most obvious. Because the science behind those truths gets stronger very day, we see an endless attempt to politicise science, and to belittle the scientific process.
Unfortunately, the kind of mind that becomes a good scientist is rarely the kind of mind that is good at politics.
For example, most scientists care about the truth while in politics... well, you get my point.
Most - not all, but most - scientists care deeply about science and about exanding human knowledge. Why else would they be scentists.
First you have to be smart enough to get through a doctoral programme, all the while living on a pittance. Then you go into a profession that, franky doesn't pay all that well.
Most scientists are smart enough that if money was their main motivator they could easily have done a business degree and become a banking executive within a few years.
They choose science mostly because they love it. And - loving it - few are willing to besmirch it.
Anthony
http://observationpoint.com.au