Changes

It's unclear to me how one would introducing political beliefs into their scientific findings.  To do so, a scientist would have to

Science is, at its core, the study of the natural world.  Honest scientists cannot report any more than they actually observe. Attacking such scientists as "biased" is tantamount to saying that nature and reality themselves carry a bias.

a.) Identify a current political issue he or she personally feels strongly about (easy to do)

b.) Relate that issue to his or her specific field of interest (hard for many scientists, but perhaps easy for others, such as climate scientists)

d.) Spin the conclusions in such a way as to deceive the scientific and political communities.

#''Nature is consistent''

The laws of the natural world are, presumably, the same everywhere in the universe.  Injecting bias into scientific findings is therefore a dicey proposition, since findings can be verified simply by doing an experiment again.  Frauds are eventually exposed for the frauds they are, and as evidence for a hypothesis accumulates, the chances that it is a fraud cleverly spun in a politically convenient way are reduced.

If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different con

 

If science had a political tilt, then we would expect the scientists of one political system to arrive at different conclusions than those of another.  Did Soviet science arrive at drastically different conclusions than Western science during the Cold War?  I don't know of any statistics on the matter, but my gut feeling is that the answer is "No."  This is related to the above point; carbon atoms in Moscow behave the same way as carbon atoms in New York, so it's hard to imagine that the basic conclusions about carbon atoms would differ between the two locales.