In science, attempts at falsification can never have a detrimental effect: if the criticism/counterevidence is sound, it gives science the opportunity to correct itself and to evolve toward a better understanding of reality; if it isn't it, then it's simply discarded and only serves to corroborate the current theory.
For this reason science not only tolerates, but encourages the proliferation of as many different and conflicting ideas and observations as possible. The way science progresses is similar to the way evolution works: the higher the rate of casual mutations, the higher the speed of evolution because, even though most mutation are harmful, only the beneficials ones are conserved and passed on to the next generations; in the same way, the higher the amount of competing ideas, the higher the chances of approaching the truth, regardless of how small the rate of good ones is.
However, in State Pseudoscience the prospect of "correcting itself" is exactly what is feared the most, because for State Pseudoscience the ultimate purpose is not to develop a better understanding of reality, but only to protect the official explaination (and the power that derives from it) at all costs; anything else is just a tool for that purpose.
For this reason, neither insiders nor outsiders can ever be allowed to develop competing constructs, and research can only progress toward a pre-determined path, one that is concerned with what the establishment finds useful for its purposes, and not with truth or objectivity.