I think the article - on purpose or not - points to a problem that is exponentially larger, as it spans all fields of science and not merely the field the author is writing about.
She points to it when she says:
“It is a practice that, to say it bluntly, has become commonplace because it results in papers, not because it advances science.”
Even “peer reviewed” has lost the meaning of “merit” it once had.
Science originated within Christian countries and centuries. This could be coincidental, or Christianity may provide a good basis for science. I realize that today anyone can do science - Christian, atheist, Jew, etc.
A relatively new kid on the block is Marxism. Marxism holds that there is a morality greater than telling the truth - advancing the cause. This belief provides a good foundation for junk science, to the extent that junk science advances the cause.
Marxism provides a handy label. Marx and Engels were successful in advancing their views. However some of their views preceded them. They were both “ahead of” and “within” their time. The same applies to Darwin.
Generally, the 19th century was a time when many intellectuals wanted to reject God and Christian morality (not necessarily in that order). Dostoevsky said, “Without God all things are permitted.” This certainly includes advancing scientific theories, not on their merits, but due to their presumed effects.