The question is whether politics and science
are equivalently grounded...
Maybe that's how you most frequently encounter this topic, but it's a gross overstatement to say that's the only question here. Was Planck was motivated by anti-science sentiment when he said that? I suspect not.
No one seriously debates whether politics is a factor in science. AFAICT, the the question is entirely to what degree politics influences the progress of science. In my experience, even people with relatively radical views understand this.
Why do you go through the act of arguing when we agree that scientific progress is a mix of politics and science?
My first claim in great grandparent was that the argument that science on progresses when scientists die is used to argue that politics and science are equivalent, that science is reducible to politics. Since we agree that is not so reducible to politics, let us agree that we agree and move on.
No one seriously debates whether politics is a factor in science. AFAICT, the the question is entirely to what degree politics influences the progress of science. In my experience, even people with relatively radical views understand this.