The question addressed by this paper is: Is it appropriate to hold politically-sensitive research to a higher standard than other research? Despite appearances, it is a political paper, endorsing Jensen's research, condemning Jensen's critics, and its conclusion is that it is not appropriate to hold politically-sensitive research to a higher standard.

Inspired by the crypto-political nature of this paper, another way to phrase the general question addressed by the paper might be: How do we prevent scientific research from being contaminated by politics?

Suppose that we required all scientific papers to disclaim any political agendas (perhaps a standard disclaimer at the top). Then someone with a political agenda could gain the support of a scientific paper, simply by lying on the disclaimer.

Suppose that we required all papers to pass a "political conclusion" filter - editors systematically reject all papers that reach a conclusion that favors one political agenda over another. Then much valuable research would be suppressed - and someone with a political agenda could gain support of a political agenda by corrupting the decision of whether a given paper reaches a political conclusion.

Suppose that we allowed all papers, so long as the data passes certain statistical tests (e.g. p-value of 0.05). Then someone with a political agenda could gain the support of a scientific paper, simply by only submitting papers which support their conclusion.

This might be a signalling problem. Can we make it more costly to create political hay from fucking with the scientific process than any benefit the political actors might get from it?