I work with some of these scientists (I'm just their damn peon computer dude coder man for them). I was checking past data and cross-referencing them from other data-collecting sources we had at the time (data collected from salt conductivity, temperature sensors from our research vessels). There's quite a bit of conflict with some of the data, and I requested the principal investigator of that data to give me more consistent data to work with (standard protocol whenever this happens). I get an email a day later giving me a better-looking data set, but was different from the initial collection.
I suggested with my coworkers that we should say that this particular data set should be labeled as bad data and not be considered at all for the final report. Maybe it was due to equipment failure or a fish bumped into it...
(warning, next paragraph is my opinion/assumption, and I can be sorely incorrect. I don't have a phD).
NOPE...the head PI used this statistically insignificant, smudged data on his report to get politically motivated grant money. ("This should be looked into for further research as it is an alarming number in this part of the ocean...."). Obviously we were a bit weirded out, but again, the dude w/ the phD has the FINAL say on ALL data; even data that has been changed 4 years after the data collecting. Can we speak up? no. We do not have the credentials.
Then again, the above is JUST MY ASSUMPTION. Of course it's peer reviewed and what not, and I have no say in this matter since I don't have the educational background (not phD) to even have a voice. I'm the dude that works behind the scenes to support these guys... I'm a mere peon bastard guy. But I can understand that a group of scientists need a living and need these grants; and it appears that the only way to get them is to politicize science (again, my ASSUMPTION. I can be sorely wrong because I do not have the credentials to have a real say in this matter).