In that case, you run into the issue ArisKatsaris pointed out here.

To the extent that science as an institution has any trustworthiness at all, it's come by it by not behaving in the manner you prescribe.

If you know that an institution deliberately filters evidence to support an agenda, then you must assume that the real state of the evidence is worse than what they're trying to show you. Hiding information looks bad (it shows you have something to hide,) so if you hide information, and can't hide the fact that you're hiding it, then what you're signalling is that you think that should the information you're hiding become public, it would be even more damaging to your cause than what people will imagine knowing you have something to hide. If people actually followed infinite recursions mentally, they would have to assume that any information that was openly being hidden for image purposes was infinitely bad.

Of course, people don't operate that way in real life, but getting caught hiding information for image purposes tends to be extremely bad for the image of any movement. If people associate radical feminism with deliberately withholding the results of scientific studies, they're going to conclude that radical feminism is something that can be destroyed by truth. If you think that society has problems with interpreting scientific data in an appropriate way, it's much more likely to serve the movement ill if you try to hide the data than if you try to encourage people to interpret it in the way you approve of while letting it disseminate openly.