Science and consensus don’t belong anywhere near each other.
Science doesn’t establish truth by voting. It evaluates teh consistency and quality of experimental data and also the degree that theory is the best fit to that data. The evaluationn of this is open to anyone who can read, think, speak and write. Of course you have to convince others of the soundness of your views - e.g. the experiment was bad because... or the data is anomalous because.... or that theory does not fit this data or a theory that better fits the data is...
Mattias Desmet wrote in his book, The Psychology of Totalitarianism, how scientific research since the 1970's has been basically worthless because it is all driven by the need to get funding which requires a fix and determine outcome. If you are paid to prove that something is true, you will achieve your objective.
Objective science would fund the discovery of the truth whatever that is. It would not fund experiments to prove something is true.
If a grant requires you to prove that a theory works, personal bias confirmation is going to cause a focus on information that supports the bias and the discarding of anything that opposes it.
On top of that, there is apparently an atmosphere of cheating in many university labs such that if you don't cheat, you don't get funding.
Another term for science by consensus is “political science”.