political science
A couple of weeks ago, Science published a pair of editorials reacting to the US presidential election results. Marcia McNutt, former editor-in-chief of Science, wrote that "science, at its most basic, is apolitical." This is, of course, absolute horseshit. Modern science is intensely political. Governments are the largest funders of scientific research, so political choices are made before any research is done. There's no other way for people to allocate limited resources. It's possible that most science is nonpartisan, but that is very different from being apolitical.
The theme of both editorials (the other one was written by the current editor-in-chief, Holden Thorp) is trust in science--why there's less of it and how to improve it. Perhaps one reason people don't trust science is because scientists continue to view themselves as apart (and better), as if science isn't subject to biases and prejudices like any other human endeavor. My friend Cory (who has a Ph.D. in applied physics from CalTech) told his kids that he'd only pay for college if they majored in a science; he told me he wanted them to understand how the world works. I was aghast. I love science--it is easy for my brain to understand--but I would never say it's the best type of knowledge for everyone all the time.