Only "science" that generates money and serves the eugenicists is allowed to be publicized.
Without financial resources and being backed up by those in power, even the best minds cannot achieve anything for real.
Moreover, "science" is a tool: the same invention has the potential of being used for good as well as for evil. Guess, which of the two usually happens? As for me, I knew what was coming already in 1998 and wrote the algorithm for the multiple recursions for the quantum computers in 2005, but didn't even try to sell my knowledge, because I knew that whoever would own it, would own the world. Sadly, the monsters also figured it out by 2013, so I only delayed the inevitable.
It is a romantic view that these people are bribed; some definitely are, but that is temporary. Intimidation is a lot more simple and a lot more universal. These people are forcing themselves to lie and in the end, they cannot tell good from evil and they don't even know who they are anymore, because they are playing roles in the Great Deception called "Science."
"Science" is the new religion and it has been for many ever since the inception of Scientism in the 1880s.
Real science is anything but what the popular belief is. As a matter of fact, the scientific method (that produces the same results under the same conditions) can hardly ever be followed. The process is even more restricted by the limitations of human thinking that wants to project two-dimensional images for something four- or more-dimensional in flux. Even when I am smart enough to update my multidimensional models (it takes some practice to compile them and even more attention to keep them updated or switched out as needed), I am aware that my thinking represents a phase delay in the order of things.
post-Marxist culture—one that kept Marx’s radical materialism and denial of religious transcendence, while dispensing with his confident predictions about the self-destruction of capitalism—would naturally tend to be radically bourgeois. By that, Del Noce meant a society that views “everything as an object of trade” and “as an instrument” to be used in the pursuit of individualized “well-being.” Such bourgeois society would be highly individualistic, because it could not recognize any cultural or religious “common good.” In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels described the power of the bourgeois worldview to dissolve all cultural and religious allegiances into a universal market. Now, ironically, Marxist ideas (which Del Noce viewed as a much larger and more influential phenomenon than political Marxism in a strict sense) had helped bring that process to completion. At a conference in Rome in 1968, Del Noce looked back at recent history and concluded that the post-Marxist culture would be “a society that accepts all of Marxism’s negations against contemplative thought, religion, and metaphysics; that accepts, therefore, the Marxist reduction of ideas to instruments of production. But which, on the other hand, rejects the revolutionary-messianic aspects of Marxism, and thus all the religious elements that remain within the revolutionary idea. In this regard, it truly represents the bourgeois spirit in its pure state, the bourgeois spirit triumphant over its two traditional adversaries, transcendent religion and revolutionary thought.”