It doesn't if the scientist's income isn't directly tied to their writing, or the opinions they reach.

I would exclude, on that basis, a research scientist for an organisation, particularly a conflicts or regulatory-opposing organisation (advocacy, litigation).

A teaching position that doesn't require publication, and a fair number of governmental organisations, might qualify. The latter depending much on the institutional incentives.

I'd also be somewhat more partial to independent research groups not immediately supported by industrial concerns, though again in the field of politics you're going to have numerous incentives.

I'm finding Robert Anton Wilson's formulation, Celine's 2nd Law, useful: accurate information is only possible in a non-punishing situation. I'd extend that: the only reward for information can be based on accuracy of that information, not the suitability of its results (e.g., shoot and/or fete the messenger).

Well, almost all research doctors, engineers and scientists are rewarded indirectly for publishing research. It's a part of the job description. We aren't paid directly for papers but may be for books. But if we don't publish, no one can benefit from the work so it would be wasted.

Downvalue professionally published work if you wish, but you'd be ignoring many of the most important papers in history.

For what it's worth I have never felt the slightest pressure from editorial boards about the content of my papers, apart from issues of methodology and clarity that usually improve the final paper. My work has little political impact though. Other's experience may vary.