As a non-professional who attempts to adhere to scientific forms of knowledge, I think this is a far better (and shorter) analysis than the article. The word "politics" has a very ugly connotation right now, and probably for much of history, but at its root, it's the process by which we make decisions as groups of people. Without "politics" we can't maintain social structures bigger than dyads, so we should never neglect politics. If someone is publishing research on a topic that is hotly contested in our society, being ignorant or indifferent to the impact that their publication might have is not a virtue.

That isn't to say scientists should only publish findings that perfectly accord with their political beliefs, but perhaps they could spend more effort trying to present their findings in such a way as to limit the inevitable attempts to draw totally wild conclusions or take them completely out of context. And, for the love of all, don't write abstracts that make it sound like you've made some sort of revolutionary breakthrough or stumbled on hidden fundamental truths! Non-specialists (absolutely including myself) will often read abstracts at best, more likely articles written from other articles written by someone who skimmed the abstract while grinding their proverbial axe. People educated in science are aware of the limitations, non-scientists on the other hand...