This is exactly the type of basic misunderstanding of what science is that perpetuates the problem. I don’t mean to be rude, but that is not even an opinion because the premise doesn’t make sense. Science is not an allegiance — it is a competition for truth. It is virtually impossible for science to have it’s “unimpeded way” because scientists all have different goals and don’t often agree on the way. Every scientist knows that other scientists are impeding their way with different theories and different goals. They do not decide or even agree on what is good and true. What you refer to is 100% the work of corporations and their greedy battles for dominance. Science does not share fault in that evil. In fact many scientists are working to stop the unimpeded ways of Monsanto, big pharma and the fossil fuel industries.

Science itself is just a method of proof and nothing more. It is not something to believe in or not believe in. That would be like saying I don’t believe in addition as a method for counting. Science is designed to eliminate all dogma and to always be open to new information. Ironically that incredibly essential strength of the method is attacked as a point of weakness by those who don’t understand the method. For example suggesting something is “only” a theory, as if a theory is a weak link, or worse yet, thinking a theory can one day become a fact. That’s just ignorance of the method.

Similar to the languages we speak as a method of communication, science can be used for good or bad, but how its used doesn’t reflect on the validity of the method itself. The goal of every scientist is not conformity to some ludicrous conspiracy allegiance, but quite the opposite, it is to prove every other scientist wrong. That’s how they succeed, get published and earn fame and fortune. Peer review and the ability for anyone to replicate a scientists findings creates the best possible governance on truth. If you submit a new theory to the world, it will be challenged, tested and vetted with incredible scrutiny by other scientists all over the world who are mainly motivated to prove you wrong. When a huge majority of the scientists reach consensus, it is the best information we have to go on, because that consensus was incredibly hard won.