Not at all.
I used to watch NOVA religiously and back then, the best shows were the one's that examined what went on behind the scenes of historic scientific achievements. Watson & Crick for example. It was fascinating, and ultimately elementary that although these folks were, of course, brilliant, they were also human beings with all the foibles of that species.
What was surprising about the Discover article was not that Fogel began his research with a very clear bias, but that he had the integrity to resist it.
Fogel is an economist but a very "scientific" one, so your right on.
I guess being a scientist can suck, for the reason you've cited, but being
anything can suck and particularly if you can't get off a dead-end path because you are too stubborn.
No need to segue to Climate Change, the biases involved are clear to anyone who cares to look.
It would remain pathetic but it wouldn't be so big a deal that "scientists" allow
politics and personal gain to corrupt their findings if as a people we didn't put so much misplaced faith in their objectivity.
"Most scientists agree..." has become the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval
of The Truth, despite the fact that at one time or another "most scientists" agreed that every "scientific" conjecture accepted as gospel, but proven wrong, was in fact The Truth."
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not anti-Science, and I'm not even anti-Scientist, but as much as I very highly value their contributions to society and civilization, I'm not prepared to consider them a breed apart----maybe the relative handful of incredible geniuses, but never the hundreds of thousands of folk who rightfully get to claim the moniker, but who are hardly exceptional.
But it can be tough being a scientist. Now it's all favors and laurels, but it must have been a bitch when the Church was after them, and it will be again when some Captain Tripps virus escapes or nanobots turn a continent into grey goo.