The other problem group is defined by the symbiotic relationship between agenda-driven people who control a lot of grant money, and the PhD culture which would publish nude photos of their grandmothers for the grant money the first group proffers. Therein is the circle of whoredom in academia, and the sciences, unfortunately, are not immune. Once a 'theory' has become widely accepted, whether it would ordinarily survive stringent peer review or not, the grant gravy train is set in motion, and huge money moves to make even the most crackpot idea 'documented scientific fact'.
Study references prior study to the point where multiple generations of studies, referencing previous work, carry forth the most ridiculous fallacies, and at that point no grant will be awarded to study any problem when the conclusions defy conventional scientific wisdom. If grant money was used to generate a study with contrary results, it is a given that the writer will see no more grants, and the work may be summarily quashed, never to see publication.
While not all scientists agree on everything, those in control of academia, (which, incidentally are often those most successful at bringing grant money to their institution), also control, through thesis/dissertation review, who will hold a PhD and who will get a job before then. Conform or die.