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.
Years ago David Packard (hp) founded MBARI with the intention of breaking the funding cycle. He put up many millions of dollars after finding that most scientists in oceanography
spend half their time writing grants. The group was roughly half engineers and half scientists. The eng’rs (including me) loved it. Proposals were evaluated on merit; not ROI.
The scientists balked and demanded that they be allowed to continue the grant process for fear that once outside peer review that they’d never get back into the loop. Dave lost.