Well because they see science as a means to an end (political control), not an end in and of itself.
For example, epidemiology has this problem. Epidemiologists routinely publish supposedly scientific papers that are actually policy papers in disguise. Often these papers violate the scientific method in some major way. Nobody seems to care. They get published regardless. Here's an example:
It unashamedly cherry-picks the UK, Denmark and Sweden to try and argue that the UK/Sweden should have adopted Danish policy. Why not study all countries for which data is available? They easily could have done, the data is there. But they don't because if you do that you end up with a null result (no policy makes reliably makes any difference). So they cherry pick in order to be "informative" (as they put it) with respect to policy.
For example, epidemiology has this problem. Epidemiologists routinely publish supposedly scientific papers that are actually policy papers in disguise. Often these papers violate the scientific method in some major way. Nobody seems to care. They get published regardless. Here's an example:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9#Sec7
It unashamedly cherry-picks the UK, Denmark and Sweden to try and argue that the UK/Sweden should have adopted Danish policy. Why not study all countries for which data is available? They easily could have done, the data is there. But they don't because if you do that you end up with a null result (no policy makes reliably makes any difference). So they cherry pick in order to be "informative" (as they put it) with respect to policy.