Nutrition? Would be surprising if there's much political distortion there but there's lots of really bad methodologies, partly because it's hard to get good data (people are bad at reliably writing down what they eat).

Social bot/misinformation research? Basically just politics masquerading as science. Methodologies are invariably bogus and conclusions are clearly determined before any 'research' is done.

Epidemiology? A mix of bad incentives and ideological distortion. The focus on policy advice isn't really scientific, and their policies somehow always end up requiring massive state intervention in people's private lives. This isn't something that falls naturally out of the science (which is unreliable anyway) but more the fact that they don't even consider any other possibilities.

The above three are pretty bad fields. There are plenty of better ones. Computer science is mostly OK. AI and cryptography are slightly dubious. Stuff like databases or computer graphics are fine. So IMO it doesn't make sense to talk about research or academia in general, or it does but only when discussing the universal incentive problems. Some fields just seem naturally resistant to political game playing because they don't have much/any impact on social policy to begin with. Obviously I mean politics as in democratic politics here, not the more mundane everyday departmental politics.