Well, I’m a scientist and I have never knowingly done any fudging. (I do like a bit of fudge though!)
But yes, scientists are only human. They make mistakes, have their foibles and prejudices - and a small number of them are not above fudging results.
Yet, they all understand, or should understand, the importance of the scientific method.
Even Rupert Sheldrake says he respects the scientific method. You could argue about the design of his experiments or the conclusions he draws from them but he does seem to be sincere in his desire to follow the scientific method.
He is not anti-science, more anti-establishment.
With respect to his questioning of the speed of light data, I think he is unlikely to be correct for the simple reason that scientists actually like anomalies! They would fall on this sort of thing with glee. It would give them something to ponder and they would try to adjust their theories to fit the data better.
I feel that Rupert Sheldrake is assigning a religious sensibility to the scientific establishment, which is undeserved. Science is always in a state of flux, though I do appreciate that individual scientists may find it difficult to let go of fondly held ideas. Sweeping inconsistencies under the carpet so the status quo can be maintained pertains more to religious ideologies.
I find him more interesting for the meta-level questions he raises, like why there are scientific ‘laws’ and whether they are fixed or evolving and similarly why physical constants are, well, constant and take values which allow for the development of complex forms and ultimately life.
This may all be in the realm of metaphysics but hard not to be a little curious about such matters
I do like mavericks. They provoke debate.