>>I'm sure there is an "everyone does it" aspect, but we do have a clear winner.
>
>Wrong. We do not have a clear winner because each Administration has the power to appoint Agency and Department heads. Whoever the next Democrat President is will do the same thing. Once the Senate confirms them, they are for the most part free to lead their agencies. While there are Congressional hearings for budgets, performance, etc., the members of Congress bow to the money of the lobbyists. The only appearance they give for lording over an agency head is purely for grandstanding for their own political purposes.

Wrong. The fact that the process of nominating & confirming political appointees is available to whichever political party is running the show does not mean that both political parties conduct themselves in the same manner or that the parties align themselves with the same causes, or to the same degree. And the appointment process does not mean that any political party by default will engage in activities such that the scientific community finds it necessary to come out and state that....

Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front [read: clear winner]. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.