I'm concerned that the way we fund and review science has some big problems. I don't want to get into a 30,000 word essay here, but some sciences are starting to sound like echo-chambers where there is a narrative and research is supposed to support that narrative. Double-blind peer reviews should help with that, or at least try to help. But I remain skeptical that anything serious is going to be done until science completes politicizing itself somewhere in the next 2-3 decades.
Nice observation..and the situation is, I think, exacerbated by the often-cited "publish or perish" nature of things. I strongly suspect that this increases the tendency to adhere to the narrative, making it even more self-reinforcing.
