The studies presented in the media are really a mixed bag (pardon the cliché), as are the reasons and timing of the release. A person who is somewhat familiar with basic science and scientific methodology can sort through them and determine which ones are actually reliable. However, the state of education these days is not conducive to critical thinking, therefore a lot of studies which are really agendas cloaked in academic language end up accepted as settled science when they aren't. There is also the problem that science journalists are not trained in science and often distort the relevance of the study, so that even if the study was valid and based on solid evidence and methodology, the reporting about it tells a completely different story.
For several years on FR, I have read science stories that have been posted, and then gone back to the original research to see what the results really are. And then I post about the validity of the research--whether or not the results are plausible, and why.
Most scientists never talk to the public. Most universities that issue press releases about their research are showcasing themselves for the benefit of the public. In these cases, the science is fine, it is the journalist's attempt to understand it and present the information so the public can understand where things fall apart. Again, you have to look at the kind of science being presented in order to assign it some level of validity--a sociology "study" almost certainly is a vehicle for conveying the "researcher's" opinions, while an environmental study may be an accurate description of (for example) the progress made towards cleaning a site where toxic waste drums leaked into the soil. If you understand scientific methodology, and have an ability to think of several possible explanations for an observation, then you have the critical thinking skills to separate the real science from opinions disguised as science.
Would you consider NASA which now gets 2.6 billion per year to study “climate change” objective? http://climate.nasa.gov/ Climate change has been NASA’s biggest growth area for their budget. They can’t get a man in space anymore, but they have cool websites with quizzes for kids on the dangers of CO2, and they have a Muslim outreach program too! Would you trust the EPA which has a vested interest in growing their administration when it comes to CO2 and their research?
These are examples of politicians dictating how the science agencies should operate and what kind of results they should find. Unfortunately, science cannot be shaped to fit politics... the Soviet Union tried that with Lysenko, and ended up falling so far behind in science that Russia is still trying to catch up. Politicians direct money towards specific areas of research all the time. That in itself is not a problem; there are so many possible areas of research that scientists have great freedom to choose their area of research. NASA does some great work. So does the EPA. In fact, the EPA funded most of my graduate work when I was working towards a PhD. The problems stem from the fact that some politicians (and I think we all know their political leaning) want scientists to produce certain results. Power-hungry politicians have not been able to force a socialist dictatorship onto the American people despite attempts dating back to at least the late 1800s. I think that they see in "climate change" a chance to finally eliminate American freedom, not by convincing us that socialism is great and wonderful, but by scaring us that the earth will be destroyed unless we embrace socialism. "Global warming", of course, is the evidence of a dying earth that they are using to scare us into submission. There still is no evidence that CO2 has a disproportionate effect on climate...but the power-hungry politicians are not about to let go of what looks like their best chance ever of finally achieving a totalitarian country. Make no mistake: most of these abuses of science are driven by politicians, not scientists, and most scientists are not complicit in advancing these political goals.
You can speak for yourself, but you cannot speak for everyone else. You can talk about the theoretical method, but what matters is what is practiced and driving this world. We are a math and science ignorant society. People are naturally predisposed to be hedonistic and the restrains that once were in place (religion and social pressures) are gone. Expect science to tell the masses what to want to hear, since they will pay for this and shower those that affirm them with accolades. Science has become a cheap product for mass consumption, for many it has become an “ersatzreligion,” not a noble search for some truth.
Of course, I speak from my personal experience. I relay my observations of the scientific world, since I have now been part of it for about 20 years (not counting undergraduate work), giving me plenty of time to observe how scientists behave and work. As I already pointed out, most scientists do not communicate with the public (I am a bit unusual in this regard). Also, I would venture to say that most of those who regard science as some kind of religion are kooks who really fall for pseudoscience, and couldn't tell the difference between a controlled experiment or statistical sampling. True scientists are not about telling people "what they want to hear." Rather, they are fascinated by some aspect of the natural world and want to study it; if they talk to anyone outside of science at all, it is to gush about their research because they want to share their fascination.
This is a simple case where everything that disproves your position you exclude from the debate be define as non-science.
Trying to point the finger at some imaginary science that is pure and unbiased is like saying communism could work and don’t look at the examples around you, because none of those are real communism.
Let me answer the questions for you.
Maybe 10% of the studies mentioned in the media are actually in any way unbiased, where all variables could be isolated, causality can be established, etc. Not even journals or magazines dedicated to science such as Scientific American are trustworthy. Yes, people do take this as the truth because it tells them what they want to hear, to include that their obesity is not something they can control, that homosexuality is natural, or today that pot is OK. Yes, those that peddle in this trash use their titles, fancy names of some institute or school to appear as if it is science. Yes, policies within government administrations, laws, even what we teach in our schools is affected by this. No, not even iconic institutions dedicated to science and that should do all possible to uphold the public trust, like NASA, are trustworthy because they have a vested financial interest in keeping global warming/climate change alive today. Furthermore, they are heavily politically influenced.
Today- you are already seeing science step more in a favorable position regards marijuana. Why? Because there is money to be made and the winds of time (culture) is becoming more accepting of this drug. Politicians at this point are lining up and throwing themselves behind the pot issue, because like the homosexual agenda, they see this as the next new topic where some political capital can be made. There are several large firms lining up and sponsoring some of this research. The number of pot heads in America is huge, they are a market and they have money.
***The science does not lead the debate, it follows it.***
Science is a whore that is there to sell a product, promote a person or idea.
The complete opposite of your claim is happening, right now. How is the scientific debate regards Marijuana unfolding/being framed?
Cannabis May Grow Stem Cells And Repair the Brain After Injury. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24256257
THC May Treat Inflammatory Diseases and Cancer By Altering Genes. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2013/11/07/jbc.M113.503037.short#ref-list-1
Cannabinoids Found To Reduce Skin Cancer In Just 20 Weeks. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jphp.12082/abstract
Cannabinoids May Be Helpful In Combating HIV. http://www.jleukbio.org/content/93/5/801.abstract
THC Can Provide Protection From Cardiac Arrest? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537701
Cannabis Can Stop Seizures. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.12321/abstract
Cannabis Combats Brain Degeneration and Increases Stamina. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1607/3326.abstract?sid=20cf2c23-e4fd-49e3-9398-ec8be2e00226
Cannabinoids May Be The Best Medication For Those With PTSD. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v18/n9/full/mp201361a.html
Cannabis Can Treat Osteoarthritis. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080440
Cannabis May Prevent Organ Transplants From Being Rejected. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11481-013-9485-1?no-access=true
Science is more often than not, a snake oil salesman because like everything else, it is ruled by budgets. Someone is paying for it, and they want to make money. There are ego’s and personalities at work, political interests, ideologies, political correctness that is filtering... The fixation on a methodology is no more than creating a supra-human mythos, a false perception of accuracy through some process design and reliance on empirical measures therein which even if strictly adhered too still can deliver false answers in all reality.