While I agree with a lot of what you say, and your point is well made, I do think it is also important to note that science isn't morally or politically neutral.
I recognize the dangers of politicising science, but it isn't clear to me what the appropriate response is when politicians refuse to acknowledge facts.
From there, it typically descends into the sort of courtroom contest where "my expert is better than your expert" because of all the politics involved. One side says we must radically change the foundations of society and the economy or the world will end, the other side says it's not a big problem and it's been happening since forever.
Any discussion by a layperson of these things results in the worst sort of internet crap, particularly if it seems to dispute the "facts" that seem to be undisputed to one side but not to the other.
So it's not just politicians who "refuse to acknowledge facts," it's also a lot of ordinary people who are skeptical when those facts are not undisputed, nor the theory that frames them, and then those who say it is so demand policy changes that disrupt their entire lives. Ask anyone from coal country if you don't believe me.
Yes, it is: all it can say is what it thinks is true about the physical world. To take the nuclear-weapons issue: science can say that if you assemble these elements in this way and initiate that action in that way then there will be a release of some amount of energy; it can't say whether releasing that much energy is good or bad, or politically wise or unwise.
Now, science can certainly inform moral and political judgements. Science can tell folks of one race that folks of another race are identically human; it can tell folks of one age that folks of another age are identically human. But it cannot come up with principles like 'treat all human beings equally.'