Journal Response

Science as it is meant to be practiced is about facts, but as it is actually practiced, Science veers away from facts and the scientists begin to manipulate the data for themselves. The facts aren’t always seen as good things. If you’re trying to prove one thing and your evidence shows something else, you won’t be able to continue studying that for long. But, if your data supports your hypothesis, you just might be awarded more money, and be able to continue your study.
And Science isn’t immune to politics or religion. There have been occasions where the data points one way, whereas their beliefs or movement tell them something else, and they side with their beliefs. For example, the article gives the example of Copernicus; he removed Earth from the center of the universe, but did NOT put the sun there, because his beliefs told him that God preferred circular orbits to convoluted circles in circles which it would be if he had put the sun at the center. Also the article gives the example where the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty condemned Bjorn Lomborg for publishing The Skeptical Environmentalist, in which he stated that industrialized countries protect the environment whereas poor countries tend to destroy it. He was later exonerated by the Danish Ministry of Science who condemned the committee for “unsatisfactory and emotional conduct deserving of criticism.” I myself am guilty of this. In some physics labs I’ve done, there has been anomalous data that doesn’t fit with the rest, and I’ve thrown it out before, to keep the experiment simple and the conclusion to the point.
So there is always the possibility of the scientist corrupting the nature of science, but the idea of science, and ideal science, does lie within the realm of facts.