How to spot biased scientific writing? Be on the lookout for whether the author(s) give short shrift to:

  • Articulating and justifying assumptions
  • Mediators and moderators that might account for their findings
  • Confounding variables that make it difficult to interpret their findings
  • Alternative explanations for their findings
  • Study limitations
  • Research or data that do not support their case.

Like other skills, you can get better at bias-detection by practice, practice, practice. In that spirit, here are some quotes from a couple academic papers on how, per system justification theory,  psychological needs motivate people to see the status quo as legitimate and fair:

.... system justification is defined in largely cognitive-motivational  terms—in that individuals seek to mentally represent the system as just, even if it objectively is not...

…linking environmental information to statements about the strength of the economic system may satiate system justification needs and break the psychological link between proenvironmental initiatives and economic risk.

- Hennes et al (2016) Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: The case of anthropogenic climate change.

Political psychologists find that conservatives are more likely to express system justification tendencies, while liberals are more amenable to critiques of the established order.

This conflict reflects a deeper division between those who levy critiques of the industrial capitalist order and those who defend the economic system from such challenges...

- McCright & Dunlap (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming

So on one side you have the needful justifiers of an objectively unjust system, and on the other? Those who are "amenable" (read: open-minded) to "critiques of the established order" (read: thoughtful, not knee-jerk reactive), who are in tune with the true nature of industrial capitalism. Or something like that.

The implicit message of the above quotations is that one side is driven by psychology (e.g., "motivated reasoning" ) and the other side is driven by the quest for truth. I propose that all sides are driven by psychology and by a quest for the truth. Doesn't matter if you're for the status quo, or against it. 

While it's interesting that psychological factors play a role in the formation of opinions, that in itself has no bearing on the validity of those opinions.

References:

Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C. A., & Jost, J. T. (2016). Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: The case of anthropogenic climate change. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 755-771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000148

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x