Do you have any examples of what you mean by "Junk science" in this regard. The scientists of my acquaintance are an opinionated bunch who are quick to deride any notions that they regard as fallacious, and who don't seem overly concerned with maintaining the status quo and not rocking the boat. Scientists are naturally argumentative.
In the past I've seen "junk science" used as a catch-all term that describes science whose conclusions a poster feels uncomfortable with, without regard to the actual validity of the science.
We have a winner.
Just off the top of my head:
Anything from "Silent Spring" except the page numbers.
The next ice age is upon us (my favorite from 1975).
Second hand smoke will kill you at 20 paces.
Alar will kill you even if you just look at it.
Salt doesn't cause high blood pressure.
Global warming is caused by humans.
Global warming is causing an ice age.
Global warming causes more storms.
I'd be willing to be proved wrong on any of the above but from everything I've read on any of the above the "facts" were generated to fit the agenda. I didn't hear anyone in the scientific community say bravo sierra or, actually some did, they were just very few and far between and certainly a minority.
Perhaps you know a better class of scientists; all those I know are so worried about funding and being accepted by their peers (humm, the SCOTUS model comes to mind) that they wouldn't open their mouth if their peers decided the world was flat.