How science censors itself

From social networking site Reddit, people discuss what happens when people working in science find themselves with results that offend the liberal consensus:
I guess this is off topic, but I've always wondered what we'd do as a society if the peer-review process uncovered something with concrete evidence that was politically discriminatory. I have a vested interest in believing that gay parents are equal to heterosexual ones, but what would I do if good science proved different? - AchyuthC
Another replies:
Ex social scientist here. I dropped out of a PhD largely in part because it was so politically biased (liberally, just to be clear) that any finding, however valid, that went against the liberal hivemind would just get shit on and shut down. I am mostly liberal myself, but I just can't stand the reality that politics trump the truth, even if it isn't PC. Rest assured, there will never, ever, ever be an official finding that gay parents are anything but equal to or better than straight parents. Not because it is or isn't true, but because if a valid study does find that, it will be shit on and shut down. - thedeejus
Another chimes in:
I found this out when studying the link between brain size and intelligence. They try to play down the link, but it's been established over and over and over again. But it infringes on one of our culture's noble lies [i.e., that "all men are created equal".] In other words, certain population groups have smaller cranial capacity (and demonstrably lower IQs in just about every study). But to openly acknowledge such a thing is (understandably) a thought-crime. When our noble lies are contradicted by science, we usually suppress the science and stick with the noble lie. You can see the same bias at work with the gay parenting issue. Of course kids are going to be impacted differently. You just can't say that, though. You have to pretend that there are no differences--when patently there are. - Drooperdoo
Liberalism, as a dogmatic belief system that is centered in human perception and not in end results in reality, naturally posits a Utopian future that can be achieved through radical egalitarianism. Not only does science oppose this, but history and philosophy. It does not stand up to critical analysis, but it is very popular. And this is is origin and goal: if a social group drops out of a larger social group and agrees on a non-realistic "truth," they can eventually gain numbers and take over if that truth is more pleasant than reality itself. Science is a business in modern society. This group has money, and will take that money away if science publishes things they don't like. The corporate, governmental and academic sponsors of any such research will suffer as well. As a result, science censors itself, and we never hear about the scientific facts that contradict popular notions of "truth." (See the full thread for more discussion.)