The problem is that science isn't hierarchical. There's nothing analogous to the papacy. (I say this knowing that the deranged conspiratorialists among the creationism/ID gang feel it's otherwise.) In science, only reality rules, but it doesn't speak for itself. We do have various organizations, and they do take positions, when pressed. Example: Statements from over sixty Scientific and Scholarly Organizations, all supporting evolution. But they have no power.
Michael Crichton's recent book "State of Fear" proposed that scientific organizations should develop a "double blind" method of funding where researchers wouldn't know where the money came from for their work, and philanthropists donating to such organizations would not know where their money was going. Crichton believes that some method like this is necessary to prevent the abuse of science.
Of course the downside is that science is supported sometimes only because it can be abused as a source of information sutable for political action. If the abuse was impossible, the money might just dry up.
Someone should start some scientific grant organization that uses such techniques, and had some slick PR people that can sell both the public and the philanthropist community on the idea that any other system of scientific funding is suspect.
Perhaps some sort of "quality rating" organization for scientific research would work.
I think the scientific community may not appreciate the necessity of good PR, because it has not really needed it before now. That's not unlike the aviation community, that doesn't know how to sell itself, because for years pilots were the cool guys, and many little boys wanted to be one when they grew up. Now the GA aviation community is on the edge of shrinking even while national affluence is high enough so that many could afford to buy airplanes. The GA folks don't know how to turn that situation around, and don't even recognize that they need to.