If I, as a (non-practicing) scientist (physicist), look at the evidence for something in vogue (say climate change), and say I have trouble with some of the conclusions, then I am immediately and permanently labeled with the absolutely ridiculous "climate denier". Yet, and this is important, SCIENTISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SKEPTICAL. Their job is to, generally, build new hypothesis, make predictions, test predictions, and not, in any way shape or form, fall in love with a theory, such that they exclude evidence that may contradict their belief. More broadly speaking, they should not believe. They should be skeptics.

The facts, the arguments should win the day. Not the histrionics.

Sadly, we are human. We are fallable. We see political winds that impact our funding for our research, and we avoid rocking those boats.

In 1918, Einstein's theory of General Relativity was not considered the way things worked. Eddington and Einstein made a prediction about deflection of photons near the sun during and eclipse. Newton's equation gave one result, while GR gave another. Eddington made the measurements, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Theories rise and fall based upon evidence. Attacks on evidence you don't like, or the source of funding for research that raises difficult questions, really doesn't help.

Look up Lysenkoism for a great lesson in why following political/popular guidance can be a really bad idea for science.