[gilesc]

Oversimplifying things a bit, these writers are saying that scientific objectivity is impossible. This line of argument tends to reduce the credibility of science in the eyes of the public, with negative consequences for research funding. This is a bad thing because, even if not "objective", science has singlehandedly transformed life for the better in the past century by reducing disease, poverty, manual labor, etc, and should continue to be funded.

[ThomPete]

I don't think any would claim otherwise.

But you don't need objective for that all you need is useful.

[derleth]

Except if some people think science is not objective, they conclude that religion is just as valid, and that, therefore, Creationism (er, Creation 'Science') needs to be taught in schools alongside the 'fact' that gays and liberals are evil, diseased beings. After all, if it's all subjective, everything is equally valid!

[ThomPete]

Science isn't objective as such. It's testable.

That is the defining factor between religion and science.