I see where Oreskes says politically-driven science isn't inherently bad. I wholeheartedly agree. But. People tend to make the assumption (and you know where that leads) that politically-driven science is wholesome and rewarding, whereas financially-driven science isn't.
Thing is, if either fail the tests of actual, you know, science, then they don't deserve the appellation. Such tests being reproducibility, peer review, publishing the actual data for independent analysis, etc. If you're not willing to share how the data for a test is "manipulated" or "corrected" or "adjusted," then you guessed it -- your results are going to be suspect. Especially so when you have enough examples of "government science" getting the benefit of the doubt when it affects citizens, but "independent science" having to go through government approval before anything can come from it.