> victim of cancel culture due to their scientific pursuits or statements either...

The system worked here and it's manufactured outrage from the conservative tabloid you linked to over some random academic drama. The academic organization laughed off the letter (which in reality was just a google doc signed by 600 unverified people, most of whom aren't even claiming to be serious scholars, but are like random students on the internet looking for a laugh) and literally nothing happened. The news here amounts to "so-and-so wrote an angry letter." Not really worth the pixels it was printed on.

> Likewise we don’t have to work hard to find gibberish accepted by the governing processes either

I don't think you fully understand the nuance of the "Grievance studies affair." I don't blame you because up until this year when I heard a really good explanation of it I was also rooting for the authors. However, now that I fully understand what happened and why the papers were accepted I completely understand the ire of academics who were upset at the media reaction to it. If you have time, please listen to episode 70 "Doubling-blinding dog balls" of the podcast "Everything Hertz" (the podcast is about how to fix the reproducibility crisis).

To briefly summarize: the reason the journals accepted the articles wasn't because their fields are so poisoned by ideological extremism that they will accept any crap that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. That's the political narrative of certain reporting on what happened. What really happened is that the reviewers recommended to accept because the papers contained useful DATA despite their batshit crazy conclusions. In fact, the reviewers that have since spoken out did criticize the questionable interpretation and often gave constructive criticism to broaden it, but recommended to accept because of the data.

Take the case of the "dog rape" study. The body of the work was that the authors (fraudulently) claimed that they had collected like 1k hours worth of observational data where they sat in a dog park and compared owners reaction to male dogs humping female versus male dogs humping male dogs as they looked at different cultural factors. If people really do have a statistically significant difference in how they respond to their male dog humping another male dog versus humping a female dog, could that tell us something about how human male-male relationships are viewed by our culture from the lens of animals being anthropomorphized by their owners? It's not my research interest, but especially with 100k hours worth of observation, that sounds like it could be some really useful data to somebody out there and is worth publishing. I think that it's worth publishing even with an interpretation that you object to because an expert in the field can come to their own conclusions.

The true irony, however, of bringing it up while claiming to pro-"diversity of thought" is that you should be applauding the journals in this instance. They disagreed with the the wacky interpretations that the authors provided, but published anyways because they felt that it wasn't their place to change it. The same would happen for whatever your favorite right leaning topic is they had also lied about legitimate and useful data on that article. Diversity of thought is exactly what happened here and you can't and ask for voices that you interpret as politically left of center to be censored unless "diversity of thought" is really just code for "make science agree more with my ideologies."

Also, journals aren't some sort of "governing body" for science. Science is decentralized and there like a million independent journals out there that publish what they want. There's also the preprint servers I was talking about with basically no moderation (outside of plagiarism and blatant fraud). You can also just go ahead and write blog posts about your science and if its valuable, then people will listen. This happens in CS and ML research.

> I certainty think they are subject to political bias

They really are not and that conflation between political interpretations of data and serious analysis are part of the problem. Right or left, everybody can agree whether 2 + 2 = 4. Your reporting of the output of your instruments doesn't depend on who you vote for. Even in cases of the wage gap (I don't have a horse in this race and so I'm not going to dive into details about it) everyone can agree that "x-analysis" on "y-dataset" gives "z-output". You can even agree that "x-analysis" has "M and N" deep issues that make it unsuited for this type of data in a consistent way that doesn't depend on how political the data you are dealing with is. It isn't up to debate and science has nothing to do with what you believe is and is not amplified by the media. If experts aren't going for your favourite analysis technique, then it probably has to do with serious flaws in the method and I'm going to guess that the reason you like that statistical technique has more to do with getting results you agree based on your biases with than performing serious science.

Look closely at what you perceive as scrutiny being applied unevenly. I'd hazard a guess that these "facts" are exactly the ones being pushed by partisan media (not scientists) with an agenda to push. You probably are seeing scientists constantly disagreeing your media outlets because its exactly those outlets that are choosing deeply flawed analysis techniques to support their ideological opinions and then getting criticized for it. Its all projection. These pundit-types know that if they were in the place of these scientists and were studying a contentious topic that they would bend and distort their analysis to fit whatever narrative they are trying to push. Probably because that's literally their day job. Because they know that they would bend the truth, they just assume with no evidence that this is what's happening in science and then complain on their shows that their conservative voices are being censored.

You're not the victim of some sort of liberal conspiracy to warp reality to its will. The head of my research group is a deacon in the catholic church. I don't know his political opinions (because science is apolitical) but I'd hazard a guess that it leans more than a little bit to the right of center. There's no broad culture of suppressing your ideologies and the whole "conservative victimization" thing is a political narrative and is being pushed really hard right now because there's an election. Besides, if you really think there's a lack of conservative viewpoints in science then stop sitting around and complaining about it and just go do science. Nobody is stopping you and you can even publish on pre-print sites without affiliation.