Very simple: Keep politics out of science. If I see an “expert” be political than I lose confidence in what they are saying.
Is there such a person on earth or in the history of science?
A link to an article that introduces the scientific method is below. Notice that the advancement of science or scientific knowledge begins with a question and scientists are human beings. Therefore human beings begin the process.
I cannot think of a single scientific question that is not political, such that when you choose to research an answer to one question, you are automatically choosing to not answer and not dedicate resources (time, money, mental focus) others questions.
Do you want to know if changing school start times to a later hour improves student performance? That's an interesting question. Do you want to know if COVID-19 natural immunity is as robust as vaccinated immunity? That too is an interesting question. But resource constraints mean you cannot answer both so you must decide which to pursue ... and that is a political choice, having nothing to do with science. Once the choice is made, the scientific method can be applied, but not before. Politics defines the questions. Science answers them.
If you have reason to believe ivermectin prevents COVID-19 infections, you research that by asking, does ivermectin prevent COVID-19 infections? Following the scientific method, you form your hypothesis (ivermectin prevents COVID-19 infections) and follow the scientific method to prove or disprove it ... giving equal weight to the both the possibility your hypothesis is true, and the possibility your hypotehis is false.
If you have reason to believe ivermectin cures people of COVID-19 after they are infected, that's a different hypothesis that would require the same scientific method to explore but a different research path to follow.
And if you have reason to believe ivermectin is ineffective as a COVID-19 prophylactic or cure, the same method would apply and yet another research path would follow.
But behind all of these questions is the very human decision to ask a particular question in the first place. It all begins with a bias or an assumption or at least an area of interest that is deemed more important than everything else a scientist might focus one's attention on.
What if you really, really, really think; and really, really, really want to believe, and really, really, really want it to be true that ivermectin cures COVID-19? Can you as a researcher use the scientific method to prove your point? Yes you can, as long as your methods are sound and you are equally open to "follow the science" if your research results show your hypothesis is false. You are not required to not have a bias in formulating your hypothesis. But to reach conclusions that will be accepted by the scientific community, you are required to suspend your bias and follow the scientific method in an objective manner.
The scientific method addresses the bias question not at the beginning of the process where the decision is made about what question to ask or what topic to research, but at the end when the research that was done is subject to peer review. Before your research and conclusions are considered valid, they must be deemed by others also trained in the scientific method to have been properly done and logicly derived.
In that regard, more harm than good has been done by social media, over-eager journalists, lay people laden with confirmation bias and pre-print web sites where research is published before peer review have done more harm than good.
Above, you highlighted the following statement: "A Canadian scientist and Harvard postdoctoral associate said she and her colleagues withheld support for the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis out of fear that they'd be associated with President Trump." And you said, "I hold them to the standard of not being politically influenced or out of fear of retribution not publicly supporting a particular position after following the science."
In this case, what science is there to follow? It seems to me the Wuhan lab leak question is not a question for scientists. It's a question for detectives and criminologists. You're not going to answer that question in a laboratory or research institute following the scientific method. You're going to answer this question in a safety department following that department's procedures, or in the courts following the law and the rules of evidence.
The Canadian scientist and Harvard associate may very well have demonstrated political bias or responded to political fears in this case, but they were not doing research. You can fault them for their political choices but you cannot fault them for not following the science.
This is a long-winded way of elaborating on the point I made above. "Follow the science" has become a mantra used by so many that the phrase itself has become almost meaningless; except in labs where trained researchers have done and continue to do it every day.
I fully understand your desire to dismiss an expert because he or she does had bad motives (a logical falacy by they way). But just because the passage you cite incorrectly used the word "hypothesis," it does not mean these experts failed to follow the science. In this case, saying they did not follow the science is like saying they failed to drive on the right side of the road, when in fact they were traveling by plane.
courses.lumenlearning.com
One last thing about "follow the science."
There is a huge volume of good, peer-reviewed research showing the consumption of alcohol is bad for you. It adds excess calories. It interferes with good quality sleep. In larger quantities it places you in a less effective mental state. In larger quantities, it reduces your ability to safely drive or operate machinery, etc. In certain people, it triggers a horrible condition named alcoholism. "Over time, excessive alcohol use can lead to the development of chronic diseases and other serious problems including: High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, liver disease, and digestive problems. Cancer of the breast, mouth, throat, esophagus, voice box, liver, colon, and rectum." (Source: CDC).
How many people preach "follow the science" and then drink that very day?
www.jpost.com
www.zerohedge.com
