Even in the sciences. Five years ago, Congress failed in an attempt to exercise power that it had long-before ceded to the executive branch. The Congressman who led the way, however, used a seriously flawed argument for his case:

Toomey argued that these studies [on sexual behavior, etc]were “much less worthy of taxpayer funding” than research on “devastating diseases”

The right argument is: It is impossible for the state to evaluate what is worthwhile science, especially when it will be paid for with stolen money. The original research article includes this telling statement:

[I]n general, [researchers] preferred to submit an NIH grant that they believed was politically viable (an act that might require self-censoring) rather than to seek alternative funding from a nongovernmental source. Only federal grants, they explained in interviews, could support the large-scale projects that they were interested in conducting.

The Nature summary has a quote from a sociologist criticizing the “Bush administration’s pursuit of ideological purity instead of effective science.” That door swings both ways: Democrats clearly have their own agenda and value system that will most definitely result in the same type of political conformity. The only way out is to fiscally separate science and state.