Well, that depends on what you mean. NASA has always been politicized--it is a government agency, after all. Anyone who thinks that the agency has ever made decisions, from what part of the country in which to award a contract, to whether or not to ship money off to Russia, that weren't driven strongly by politics has no understanding of how government agencies work. The question here is, has the science that NASA purports to do and report become more politicized?

Troublingly, the answer may indeed by yes, but again, it's still nothing new. On the other hand, the Sentinel damages its credibility when it writes:

Former Administrator Sean O'Keefe made an unprecedented decision that fall to campaign on behalf of Republicans. In the final days before the election, he visited Huntsville, Ala., home of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, to endorse U.S. Rep. Bob Riley, R-Ala., for governor. A similar visit to Cocoa Beach to stump for U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, was canceled only after O'Keefe's flight was delayed.

There's nothing unprecedented about this. Where were they when Dan Goldin was doing the same thing with Barbara Mikulski in the nineties?

Setting that aside, though, certainly hiring an unqualified political hack and college dropout for a powerful position at the Public Affairs Office (PAO) was shameful, but just as much of that thing went on in general during the Clinton years (anyone remember Craig Livingstone, the former bar bouncer made head of White House security?). And it's not like PAO has ever been a bastion of competence, either. Certainly, though, it's troubling when you have people with very little understanding of science (at least based on the quotes) telling scientists how they have to present their data (the young idiot insisted on prefixing the phrase "Big Bang" with the word "theory," as though this was somehow pejorative--ah, well, just one more blow to the reputation of journalism degrees).

But there is also this myth that science is science, and that scientists never let their own personal political viewpoints color their interpretation of the data, and that scientists can be, and are above the fray of political debates. Unfortunately, particularly when it comes to environmental issues, many scientists have allowed themselves to become political pawns in issues for which many of them have sympathy, and they often attribute too much certainty to their conclusions than is justified by the data, because they find them personally appealing from a policy perspective.

In fact, it seems to me that claims of scientific objectivity are similar (though perhaps slightly better founded, given the nature of the scientific method and peer review) to those of journalistic objectivity--the notion that somehow, despite one's personal prejudices, it's still possible to play it straight down the center. We know that in journalism, that's a nonsensical conceit, and we should be wary of the same argument made by people with science degrees.

The lesson here, I think, is that rather than have an unrealistic expectation of pure scientific objectivity coming from a government agency, we should instead expect politics to intrude, both from without and within, and always maintain a realistic and skeptical view of the process with as much transparency as possible, and keep the debate flowing freely with no assumptions of nobility on either side. Blogs can help with this.

[Update at 9 AM EST]

Thomas James has a Carnival of Space Moonbattery. It really is related, honest.