sounds good in theory. but science is influenced by politics, religion, what people want to hear, and very very importantly SPONSORS AND CORPORATIONS!!!!
find me a single science study NOT SPONSORED, HAVING NO DONORSHIP FROM POLITICIANS OR CORPORATIONS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINLY, ILL GIVE YOU 100 DOLLARS ON PAYPAL RIGHT NOW!!!!
On paper, just as the science presenting its point, is GOOD. BUT..... Science just like Religion = POLITICS!!!!!
Let's try to organise your outrage a little. Firstly, we live in a capitalist world. If one is looking hard enough, you will find potential sources of bias everywhere, because quality research is expensive to do, and even on-paper neutrally academic institutions such as universities will receive funding from less neutral corporate entities and individuals with corporate interests.
Additionally, scientists need to earn money to live, as we all do, and therefore even scientists working solely for non-profits may have worked previously at large corporations with an interest in biasing studies that they fund, or at the very least will have been educated at universities which are exposed to this same corporate bias (I haven't looked any of this stuff up, it just seems an obvious likelihood given the world we live in - it's possible academic institutions take more steps to prevent bias than I've assumed, and it's possible there are scientists who have somehow never been exposed to capitalist biases - but it's not necessary for this to be the case to demonstrate the overall reliability of science as a method to understand reality).
All that being said - while, in theory, a shady company could publish a convincing but entirely falsified study supporting their commercial interests (as has happened many times, big tobacco, radium safety, etc) there are limits to how much bad science can persist in the long term, as entities with conflicting interests attempt and fail to replicate this bad data. Additionally, the
results of science are
demonstrably real and cannot be ignored. All the technology of the modern world that we enjoy is a result of decades or more of painstaking scientific research. Religion and political bias does not, on it's own, result in a global internet, the mobile phone, or software to splice together garbled conspiracy theory videos and put them on YouTube.
It's not a coincidence that the meteoric pace of technological advancement just in the last 100 years or so has occurred concurrently with an ever increasing understanding of how to
think critically about reality. Scientific bias still exists for sure, and suppression of science by politicians still happens, but the more that critical thinking skills are diffused throughout society, the harder this becomes and the more ridiculous it looks. 200 years ago it would be easy for a study that suggested that, say, gay marriage would probably
not lead to the collapse of society to be suppressed and the author dismissed as a Satan-inspired gay-sympathising lunatic with probably few people batting an eye. On the other hand (to use a topical example) a few years back when the UK government dismissed Professor Nutt for suggesting that current drug laws in most of the world are unjustifiably unscientific and nonsensical, this was clearly seen by almost everyone as a blatant attempt to suppress science in favour of politics.
Science does not equal politics, and neither does religion, although all of them play a part in our world today of course. Again though, if you have a better way to understand reality than the scientific method, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it.