In this chapter, we discuss the infiltration of socio-political viewpoints into the scientific peer review process. Classic scientific cannons of evidence posit that science is distinguishable from non-science by its universalism and disinterestedness. Robert K. Merton argued that “truth-claims, whatever their source, are to be subjected to pre-established impersonal criteria, and that the acceptance or rejection of evidence is not to depend on the personal or social attributes of the scientist.” These are values that are broadly endorsed by mainstream scientists, yet they appear to be ignored in the peer review process. Here, we describe three case studies consistent with the claim that socio-political viewpoints influence evaluations of scientific findings. Whether a manuscript is accepted for publication, a grant is funded, or a proposal is approved by an IRB is seemingly a function of the congruence of each work product with reviewers’ socio-political agenda. The assessment of the quality of scientific contributions should not be influenced by extra-scientific considerations such as a reviewer’s ideological stance.