Last year George Avery of Purdue University wrote an article in World Medical and Science Policy about politics perverting scientific conduct and raising the ugly spectre of Climategate (paywalled here).
Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences, and who are willing to act to suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, healthcare and climate policy. In the area of climate policy, recent revelations of emails from the government-sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies and indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers’ advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.
This seems to have been followed by a rebuttal from Trevor Davies of UEA (paywalled here) and then a response from Avery in the current issue (paywalled here).
I gather that Davies' position was that the article should be retracted, citing the Deutsche Bank report (!) as evidence that nothing untowards happened. Apparently the editors are dutifully going to re-review the paper. Expect them to resign shortly ;-)
(H/T Ross McKitrick)