Ah, scientists. The same guys who told us that if we didn't eat oat bran (remember that?) for breakfast, lunch and dinner we'd all succumb to cancer, and that the world would most probably end in 2000. (Y2K, OK?) It's really no wonder we beat them up when they were just nerdy kids at school..............
I'm sorry, I'm just cranky that I had to mow my lawn.............. 
I call foul. The medical community has a more lenient criteria for what constitutes 'statistically significant.' The idea being that if a new medicine/treatment/warning can help, they'd rather it get to the market quicker, etc. What ends up happening is a lot of claims turn out to be false upon further research. In other words, the non-medical research community has to pay for the sins (overzealousness) of the medical community.
And Y2K... I think that was computer nerds (no offense to the IT folks here
, not "scientists." And you can always find someone (e.g., the media) trying to make a buck off someone else's fears. On
both sides.
There is no doubt that the "scientific community" experiences political and financial pressure from the government that influences the content of the papers they publish.
I find that pretty tough to believe. Firstly, let me make it clear that I'm talking about reputable scientific journals. I agree that any yahoo could publish crap elsewhere... and that's why research scientists, almost exclusively, do not cite stuff from non-refereed journals.
Here is why I think it's unlikely the politicians have much influence:
Most scientific papers are authored by multiple persons in a collaboration. This helps to work out any possible errors that may have happened in the research. It also helps in finding the best interpretation of the data. It is very common that these scientists in collaboration live in different parts of the world. This makes it a little more difficult for the politicians of one particular country to push their agenda. When the scientific paper is written, (which should include enough information for anyone else to reproduce the results), it is submitted to an editor of the journal the scientists are trying to publish in. These journals require that you can only submit your paper to only one journal. You cannot submit it to 15, play the odds, and hope one accepts it. Once you have submitted it, the editor gives it to one or more anonymous referees (the authors are not allowed to know the identities of the referees). A "referee" is another scientist that has expertise in that field of study. The referee(s) then spend up to a month with the paper nit-picking it apart. It is then either flat-out rejected, or the referee provides the editor with a laundry list of things that must be addressed by the original authors. This list includes everything from typos to counter arguments of the results. The authors must address these issues and return it to the editor who then gives it back to the referee(s) and the process starts anew until the paper is ultimately rejected or accepted. If rejected, then the authors are free to try another journal, but the process for the other journals is the same, and in fact, it's possible they could even get the same referee (possible, but not probable). If the paper is accepted, then it's published for the world (not just the U.S.) to see and critique. If there's an error somewhere, it is likely to be revealed in someone else's paper. I have personally done this (as a minor part (like a few sentences) of a paper I did) when I pointed out a problem with a calculation of another group's research that had relevance to my research. In this case, my pointing out their error actually strengthened (not weakened) their results (I solved a problem nagging their research), and it strengthened my results too. The point is, the papers are out there for the world to see. And there's never a shortage of people willing to point out any errors.
So... I find it hard to believe that politicians could have such a strong influence over every single person involved to be able to influence the results. I don't doubt that they try! But I think the system is such that their efforts are fruitless for the most part. Of course, I could be wrong, but I personally have never seen
any results skewed because of a politician or political influence of any kind. In fact, of the people I've worked with, I have no idea of what their political affiliation is. We have never, ever, talked about it.
I'm a physicist at the University of Notre Dame. Just received my doctorate and was hired on here as faculty. For what it's worth.
