Looks well worth a watch. Thanks, user.
Admittedly, I'm a math/physicsfag which is too pure to poz…for now, though I have had the argument with (((social science))) academics about math as a white male construct; don't get me started on that. However, I've had close colleagues in genetics/biology who've been told straight up to change their results or can their research entirely because it turned up something undesirable. There's either a financial or a political reason for this.
One example: A colleague was working on a big computational simulation to try and determine the effects of some new drug molecule on the human eye. Scientists need to be paid, so this funding was thanks to the pharmaceutical company that had patented the molecule. After about a year or so of devising a super-complex model for the eye, with fluid motion, chemical reactions, electrical activity, and the like, accounted for - he basically left nothing out - and a shit ton of simulations, he came to the conclusion that the molecule would cause significant damage to the microvascular system of the eye with a non-trivial probability; big pharma's drug was going to fuck your eye's blood vessels up big time.
So my colleague, being the honest scientist he is, reports these findings exactly as he found them to the pharmaceutical company. At first, they tried to reason with him along the lines of "If you manipulate this parameter in your model, does it affect the outcome?" He told them no, as he had done a very comprehensive sweep of all possible parameters that would be typical for the human eye. Then the company became more unethical in their requests, demanding that he somehow change his realistic model into one which shows the effects of the patented molecule in a positive light. He refused again, and the company became malicious, pulling his funding and threatening legal action if the results ever saw the light of day.
Naturally, he was devastated, and I emphasize with him, because an entire year of hard work went down the toilet and he had nothing to show for it even though he did proper science. He also got flak from higher ups in the department because he had a year long gap where he hadn't produced papers; they were apparently not interested in the reason for why this occurred. I encouraged him to leak his results to a whistleblower, but he seemed pretty spooked by what the company could do to him and the new family he had just started. But Christ, just imagine what damage such a drug could do if it were ever actually widely used and here it is being covered up by all parties.
Another second example involved a more political reason: It involved a colleague who looked at how the fetus brain grew in the womb. He was interested in the the development of the male and female fetuses, and how they could be discerned - you can probably already see where this is going. Long story short, he basically found that important chemicals for the development of the brain were released at different times and with different quantities, depending on whether the fetus was male or female, further supporting the claim that men and women are fundamentally different; it isn't a social construct. Unfortunately, he was at a pozzed to hell university which didn't like these (((problematic))) results. They apparently threatened him legally with the university's own lawyers if he published the work with his affiliation listed as that of the institute's. Luckily, he told them to go fuck themselves and went somewhere else. I think he did get these results eventually published - good for him - but this is rather atypical.
Sorry for the blogpost, but that's a glimpse of some of the bullshit that's now happening in Academia, at least from the science side. Admittedly, I'm thinking of leaving, but some part of me wants to stay to try and bring down the system from within because it really does have to go. Pic related.