People are unfairly downvoting you.

I like what the FAA does: they separate fact-finding from policy-making after an aviation accident.

The fact-finding folks make no recommendations on policy. All they do is find the cause of the incident.

Only after they are done do a completely separate group of people address how the problem could be fixed.

In your proposal, scientists would be the fact-finders, and politicians would be the policy-makers.

So the idea would be it's illegal for anyone working for the Fed to employ the scientific method?

That's ... an idea I'd never considered. How would such a State make practical decisions? For example, rules for food safety? Could it still regulate the money supply without economics?

Why? I'd like to see a more scientifically-minded State.

It's useful to remember that science is a social construction, and thus that there is no definitive science, but rather a collage of emotions and opinions about scientific endeavors. Thus, we cannot actually marry science to the State; the closest we can come is to choose representatives who are scientific.

I like the concept, but the separation of church and state is only nominal in the first place. Barriers that obstruct one aspect of culture from influencing other aspects are good, but these aspects are ultimately part of the same whole.

Do you have any historical examples of that model working successfully on a large scale?

I'm not sure I understand what this means. Most policy prescriptions rely on empirical research and hypothesis testing. Government is applied social science.

This is impossible.