And that is how ALL science at least since the mid-21st century is done. You are funded either by a company or the government. (through the NIH or whatever funding source) Your research is on a specific topic of interest. The topic of interest already has pre-loaded into it what you are trying to prove. Genetic engineering? You are trying to prove you can do so effectively and safely. Petrochem? Trying to find ways to find oil reserves. Climatology? Trying to find more datapoints to support anthropomorphic climate change. Social Science? Most likely trying to prove that Huwait Supremacy is the leading cause of heart attacks in Black people. If your research can not or does not answer the question in an acceptable way, it is discarded before peer review.

On top of that, academic politics will decide who stays in a position to receive funding and support. The department will have a set of goals and - if not specific ideological beliefs - at least an inertia that pushes everyone towards answering specific questions, of which there is only a limited set of specific answers. If you choose not to study those questions in a satisfactory way, you will either be removed from the position, or your funding and opportunities for promotion will be cut. It wasn't so bad before Woke took over everything, because you could move to a friendlier institution if your ideas were controversial.

There have always been academics who buck the trend and put out surprising findings (and it's required in some publicly funded health studies) but they are the exception and not what the system encourages.