You're right. I think philosophy has an important role to play. As you said, science isn't the best source for moral guidance. Philosophy of war anyone?And then there's a real issue of turning to Scientists for every concern. Some issues can and should be addressed without consulting Science. I don't know if you agree or disagree with that statement. I'd think you would want to avoid turning scientists into our new Apostles.
If not then you are engaging in scientism. And we've had that conversation before.
What happens when fitting the data doesn't fit peer review? Prestige is often gained in spite of "monetary objectives", where those who shirk the status quo are often those who make the largest discoveries. Many, but not most, scientific 'discoveries' with monetary motive have turned out to be false. You're right on that point. But notice that they turned out to be false? That's the corrective feedback loop that makes science powerful. In the end, even all the money in the world can't ignore eventual truth.As it relates to politics, there's mostly power, wealth, and "special interests" involved. Political parties dish out monies to scientists that will push agendas favored by that party. Said scientists, with their own prestige and money objectives are motivated to "fit the data" that is being sought.
There are scientists on both sides of the spectrum. But political lobbying is primarily represented by industries with high pollution. Manufacturing, Utilities, and Oil and Gas are the top 3.