And it isn't to say that Earth-based shows can't be real science fiction. That's a stereotype. Indeed, for much of the '80s and '90s, prose science fiction tended to focus primarily on near-future Earth-based stories focusing on themes like computers and AI, biotechnology and transhumanism, dystopian and post-apocalyptic scenarios, and the like. Since mass-media science fiction tends to lag about two decades behind the prose, a similar shift in focus occurred there in the 2000s. But it's called science fiction, not space fiction. As long as it's driven by the effects of scientific and technological change, then it's just as much SF whether it's on present-day Earth or 37th-century space.
Heck, I consider Eureka to be one of the most solidly science-fictional shows ever made. Because it was actually, fundamentally a show about science itself -- about scientist characters and their work, about the impact of their discoveries and inventions. Sure, the science was extremely fanciful (though it got better in the last 2-3 seasons), but the work of science itself was the central focus of the entire series, more so than even on Star Trek, and enormously more so than on something like Dark Matter or Killjoys. Those shows are space opera, but Eureka was science fiction in the purest, most literal sense.
I'd also count Fringe as a good example of a present-day show that was emphatically science fiction. Two of its three lead characters were scientists (essentially), and all its plots were driven by mad science and its consequences. Again, it was thoroughly fanciful, often quite ludicrous pseudoscience, but it was presented as science, the result of scientist characters' research and innovation.
