I teach and do research in college mathematics/statistics including mathematical physics. I have been especially impressed over the years by the greater acceptance of new ideas by astronomers and astrophysicists compared to physicists, mathematicians, engineers/computer scientists and most other scientists/quantitative specialists.
I think that it has to do with the Non-Euclidean historical idea, and so I'll say a few words about it. The Ancient Greeks were Euclideans, who thought that the world/universe was flat in the rather curious sense that if two line segments were drawn which could be checked as keeping the same distance apart for finite lengths, then the Greeks considered as an axiom that they would remain the same distance apart no matter how far they were extended. Since the Earth is a flattened sphere, this is not even true on the Earth except approximately at tiny distance scales.
The Non-Euclidean geometers dropped this PARALLEL POSTULATE, and this eventually led to general relativity and string/brane/duality physics and so on with a little help from some other ideas.
Mathematics NEVER extended the Non-Euclidean idea to branches other than geometry, and this tendency of math/sciences/engineering practitioners NOT to examine their axioms and assumptions and even definitions and emphases/interests is actually an unscientific bias with very serious consequences.
Non-Euclidean Astronomy, Probability-Statistics, Topology, Algebra, and so on would simply change one or more axioms or postulates or theoretical assumptions/principles or even foci of interest and EXPLORE the results as part of a competing theory. My wife Marleen and I did this with probability-statistics in a 1980-81 UC Berkeley philosophy symposium, and we've continued that ever since.
We made a few mistakes like publishing in more obscure philosophy journals, contacting prominent Euclidean-type mathematicians and scientists and engineers who had not the faintest interest in really different ideas [an astronomical waste of time, so to speak]. I wasted prodigious time on the internet, thinking that somebody would surely be interested. Finally, in 2000, my paper which also related probability-statistics to mathematical physics and fuzzy multivalued logics was published in B.N. Kursunuglu et. al. [Editors] Quantum Gravity, Generalized Theory of Gravitation, and Superstring Theory-Based Unification, Kluwer Academic N.Y. 2000, 89-97. Thinking that this indicated a breakthrough, I delivered another paper the next year at the Quantum Gravity conference, and was later informed that there was not enough interest in logical approaches to physics.
The SCIENTIFIC-MATHEMATICAL METHODS which include mathematics and engineering in their quantitative aspects need to clarify their own implicit axioms and assumptions. BUREAUCRACY cannot be part of their methods or their environments, since bureaucracy selects ideas and theories by their social or cultural ties to the scientist rather than for their merit or even their quality of being alternatives that need to be considered. Popularity as judged by the sheer NUMBER of people in the field who believe in some theory can also not be part of the scientific-mathematical methods based on the fact that Creative Geniuses have so often been in disagreement with their contemporaries and with past trends [Mozart, Beethoven, Socrates, Pierre De Fermat, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Einstein, Kurt Godel, George Cantor, etc.].
Worse even than BUREAUCRACY itself but often part of it is the scientific view that only one master theory can be right and that also other theories will fall by the wayside - I call it Law of the Jungle Competition as opposed to Sports Teams Competition. The former kills of the competitors, the latter keeps them competing for motivation and interest and recognition that today's evidence may not equal the total evidence accumulated tomorrow or at some other future time - and also because there may be more than one picture of the world as for example the Schrodinger and Heisenberg quantum mechanics pictures, the Euclidean and Non-Euclidean pictures, etc.
Bad Science thus has at least two aspects - bad from WITHIN the mainstream and bad from WITHOUT the mainstream by people who do not learn the best of the past before they rebel against the past or who sometimes are even charlatans.