Science claims to follow evidence wherever it leads—but critics argue that funding, politics, and professional incentives quietly shape which questions are asked, which results are published, and which voices are silenced. When grants, reputations, and careers are on the line, is “consensus” always about truth—or about survival within the system?
Defenders insist that peer review, replication, and transparency make science the most self-correcting enterprise humanity has. The real debate is whether modern science still challenges power or whether power now decides what counts as science.