'Attempts' is the operative word there..ain't no scientist doing no research if ain't going to be given the money by politics..that includes universities as well.
And really, science doesn't 'attempt' anything. I think that is a shortcut way of looking at something that is already in full swing. Context is king.
The subject matter, the hypotheses, the framework for what is even considered as a possible conclusion undermine any 'attempt' at 'pure' science.
That's not to say that science influenced by politics isn't good science, worthwhile or 'valid', its just that all science should be conceived of as having as its backdrop a political flavour. Its the reason why the American flag was put up on the moon as opposed to say a 'world' flag. The science was good though!
The institutions that fund our scientific endeavors are monolithic structures that are provincial in their outlook and only have so much money to dole out. The people that dole that money out rarely give a blank check. They are people with political bents (and will withdraw that money for projects they don't deem worthy).
It is in this sense that they are 'conservative'. Not 'Republican' or 'right wing' conservative. In this sense you can be liberal and conservative..It might better be conceived as restrictive and necessarily so because it is a human endeavor..
As I see it, with few exceptions, this is how it works out on the whole, unless you are digging up dirt in your backyard with a microscope and some litmus paper..
Again, I'm not trying to valuate this phenomenon, just trying to place it in context..