Thomas Jefferson once said "Those who wish to be ignorant and free, believe in something that never was and never shall be."
Science mongering is using science to push an agenda while leaving no room for dissentment. It considers from the start that all opponents are an external threat or an attack to the group, so it makes it impossible to have a critical discussion. As Douglas N. Walton* says "a fortress of hardened dogmatism that leaves no room for critical doubt or questioning at all".
A great example of this is climate change.
The argument is often made that if you support the climate change agenda, you support the planet, but if you don't, you don't care about the planet. So it leaves no room for people who care about the planet but don't support the climate change agenda.
This type of hardened bias is what defines fanaticism. As Walton says "it allows no empathy or tolerance required to look at the argumentation of the other side and appreciate the evidence for it - it is a dogmatism fueled by an emotional identification with the group position".
The terms "fake news" and "alternative media" where coined to attack mainstream media back using exactly their same tactics, and in reaction to their way of manipulating and discrediting all valid opposition to their anti-Trump propaganda machine.
In the case of climate change, mainstream media did it again by calling opposition "climate deniers" while the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, had to remind them in a CNN interview that the right term would have been "skeptic" and that nothing close to "scientific consensus" exists because science is not about votes, it is about facts.
And it is the same case for Brexit, Vaccines, GMOs, Cancer Treatment, Trump and on and on...
Science mongering or fanatic scientific propaganda, is a blatant attempt to thwart your freedom of choice and your freedom to think. No individual, group or community can hold a monopoly on science. If so, it wouldn't be called science. Skepticism drives science.
Given enough of their so-called "consensus", politicians could easily wipe out your right to decide for "health" or "safety" reasons, just like it happened in California with vaccines. Again, the term "anti-vaxxers" was cleverly devised to discredit the opposition from the start.
Citing the "greater good" is an often-used reason for pushing health or national security agendas, but it also makes for a great excuse to get away with almost any crime against humanity, like mass murder, war, ethnic cleansing or political persecution. The fallacy of the "greater good" argument lies in that there can not be any objectivity when you have to "select" which persons from the group you are going to harm. That's why in finance law we have minority rights and in medicine we have the Hippocratic Oath, which many physicians no longer follow.
Science is as good as its evidence and evidence can change or "disappear". So far we are the only ones who seem to pay and face the consequences of political, scientific or financial error, so we should never renounce our right to see all evidence and decide for ourselves.
The institutional discredit of people's own natural right to think and decide for themselves in the name of scientific literacy has now backfired with the highest loss of credibility in history.
I leave you with an easy logical example. When someone says vaccine safety is supported by massive evidence and scientific consensus, I wonder what consensus are they referring to? The one that agrees that its common additives like mercury, aluminum or formaldehyde are toxic or the one that says it's totally fine to inject them in our body? At the end, it will always be your choice, not theirs.
*Sources: Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Douglas N. Walton. SUNY Press. 1992