Science is biased against any fact to is not easily understood with current scientific thinking. I particular I refer to the human remote sensing experiments researched at Stanford Research Institute SRI and published in the IEEE. Science as a whole has diliberately ignored these results. They do so because those results are the best available evidence that consciousness can exist outside of the human body.

If these results were accepted, it would open a pathway to support religious thinking. A former boss of mine at AERL, Arthur Kantrowitz, who is now at Dartmouth College, led the effort to neglect those results; and unfortunately he was quite successful. Nowadays you cannot get money to even prove that the results were incorrect. The whole subject area has become taboo.

So the scientists who are in control of science only allow for experiments that support the present scientific view of reality.

Same goes for energy technology. At MIT the oil lobby is so strong that research on alternate fuels are discouraged. The list of inherent biases goes on and on. Sometimes the motive is philosophical. For example, Arthur thought he was leading the charge against creationism. And other times the motive is sheer greed.