What happens when you have an authoritarian system in place controlling distribution of results, is that everyone in that system quickly learns that if they que

What happens when you have an authoritarian system in place controlling distribution of results, is that everyone in that system quickly learns that if they question the reliability or wisdom of the research, their career is over. So they go along and don't subject the results to the kind of scrutiny science relies on, because making the boss look bad or embarrassing the institution isn't an option in that situation. There are many examples, such as the secretive public-private DOE FutureGen program aimed at "zero-emission coal-to-hydrogen plants" which wasted about ten billion dollars over twenty years with nothing to show for it (and whose data is still not available), the Trofim Lysenko plant breeding program in the Soviet Union which wrecked Soviet agriculture for decades (and falls into your latter category) and so on. Another example could be the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster, although that's more an engineering failure than a science failure, but it had similar underlying causes, i.e. managers pushing engineers to go along with a flawed protocol.