1. I think things that are desirable are easy to offer citations for because there is a motivation to promote the desirable.
2. Conversely, things that are not desirably are not researched by people who do not desire the result.
So the citation is moot if either way it is biased. If you ever read any medical papers, they are a fine example. Look at the efficacy of Seroxat/Paroxetine for a fine example. GSK papers = utterly wonder drug. Independent researchers = suicide pills.
Which is where we stand on everything more complicated than basic scientific issues.
Applying that to my point, there is nothing citable as the result is probably not politically desirable.
Philosophical note:
1. I think things that are desirable are easy to offer citations for because there is a motivation to promote the desirable.
2. Conversely, things that are not desirably are not researched by people who do not desire the result.
So the citation is moot if either way it is biased. If you ever read any medical papers, they are a fine example. Look at the efficacy of Seroxat/Paroxetine for a fine example. GSK papers = utterly wonder drug. Independent researchers = suicide pills.
Which is where we stand on everything more complicated than basic scientific issues.
Applying that to my point, there is nothing citable as the result is probably not politically desirable.
It's all "in my humble opinion".