Jacob Levy at Volokh provides another example of the muddled thinking about science policy now so common.

...This isn't the first administration to meddle in scientific review processes for political purposes, but the current administration's version is particuarly worrisome. It's concentrated on public health in general and reproductive health in particular, interfering with the ability of public policy to deal honestly and competently with AIDS in particular.

Now, strict libertarian principle (or even strict Rawlsian-neutralist liberal principles) might tell us that state funding of research is a bad idea, but doesn't give us any guidance as to how it should be structured if it exists. My view is something like this: if state funding of research is justified, it has to be because of the value of getting good science and good research. That requires that the programs, to have merit, have to be insulated as much as possible from political interference and left free to pursue good science. The basic mechanism for this is peer review. Without an open process vetted only by peer review, NIH, the CDC, and all the rest become pure pork, and arguably detrimental to the pursuit of good science. (An analogy, for my libertarian bretheren: we don't need a state-provided currency. But given that we have one, it's better that we have an independent Federal Reserve than if monetary policy were set by the Secretary of Treasury or by Congress.)

Levy is wrong to claim that any administration has ever meddled in "scientific review processes for political purposes", the science community produces and judges the merit of research in scientific terms though it is utterly unqualified to judge its value to society. It doesn't matter at all what any political institution thinks, science is science.

Levy is also wrong in his understanding of science research funding. The national currency and The Federal Reserve are nothing like national science research funding because it is not and cannot be The science research funding. National funding of science research is the purely political branch of the science funding stream. It has nothing to do with "the value of getting good science and good research" since that is always available whether nations fund research or not.

National policy is, must be, political since that's what self-rule means. Policy is much more than the views of scientists and that's a very good thing. As Ronald Bailey recently testified to congress "They [scientists] generally go wrong because they ignore or misunderstand how human beings interact with the natural world and with other people, that is, they are largely ignorant of economics."

Science continues to make discoveries whether they become part of national policy or not. Nations can skew science efforts with floods of cash but this has a very poor record of advancing science. You can't simply insist that people be creative and make discoveries, you can't even bribe them to do so. That you have a right to try doesn't help at all in the production of new science. It hurts science a little to be funded by national political patronage but none of the other streams of funding are pure and untainted by desires either.

As a thought experiment try to imagine a funding mechanism that is not political. Perhaps we can one day build a near omniscient and dispassionate artificial intelligence that has only the "good of humanity" at "heart". But as long as people do the deciding it will be political whether the people have examined their lives sufficiently to be aware of their political and social assumptions or not. Worse, any institution founded to do the task will become increasingly politicized over time, as all institutions do.

The best approximation of apolitical science funding is what we have now; a diverse stream of funds from diverse perspectives. Though each stream is necessarily political the net result is not unless one of the streams is dominant. Reducing national involvement in science funding would help preserve this diversity. Leaving policy decisions in the hands of politicians and science in the hands of scientists is good for society.

We may not agree with the current administration about its policies but what thoughtful person agrees with any administration? They all pander to fringe constituencies of one sort or another and implement policies designed solely to mooch votes rather than govern well. This is not a problem that needs solving, this is what self-rule is like and it is far better than alternatives. To limit the destructive effects of politics on science, limit the involvement of government with science.