There are a variety of scientific issues with political elements.<p>For example, evolution. Not the relatively uncontroversial evolution from (common ancestor) -&gt; {humans, apes}, but evolution within humans after this point. See, e.g. James Watson: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;James_Watson#Provocative_comments" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;James_Watson#Provocative_comme...</a><p>Or economics. Consider this incident in the US: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thehill.com&#x2F;policy&#x2F;finance&#x2F;255726-dem-economists-attack-warren-over-brookings-firing" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thehill.com&#x2F;policy&#x2F;finance&#x2F;255726-dem-economists-atta...</a><p>The only real attacks on science that get coverage are the ones attacking environmentalism or pre-human evolution. But science does (or at least should) influence politics in a lot more places.