What makes us think that science is “objective”? Steve Heims, in a 1980 book, put it nicely:

“The ethos of science rests on two pillars, the politically useful myth of “value neutrality” and the article of faith most conducive to the growth of scientific bureaucracy, namely, that scientific innovations (“progress” ) and science-based technological innovations are a priori beneficial. While these two pillars clearly knock against each other, they continue to hold up the practice of science.”

This is not to say that we should ignore facts, as this administration is wont to do, but that we should recognize that our values inform how we select topics.