From a reader:

First, I think it may be a bit unfair for Peter to require your example be of politicians or Clinton appointees. Your point was about the left vs science. It seem like he changed the rules-of-the-game by trying to require your examples be from the Clinton Adminisration, which rules out the academy. Lots of ideas from the universities seep into to political thought and discussion, and they are surely as relevant. And on that front, I had to write a paper for a composition class about 8 years ago and I included as an example this incident [reported by Barbra Ehrerich in “The Nation” which adds a little spice!]: ” The hostility of some scholars to science is more disturbing. Barbara Ehrenrich reported in “The Nation” (6/9/97 [* see link below]) this story from a conference on emotions. Social psychologist Phoebe Ellsworth was a presenter at the conference. Ehrenrich reported “As soon as the word “experiment” passed her lips, hands shot up. Audience members pointed out that the experimental method is the brainchild of white Victorian males.” Ellsworth pointed out that the experimental method led to the discovery of DNA. As Ehrenreich wrote, this short-lived dialogue between paradigms ground to halt with the retort: “You believe in DNA?” This intellectual movement is probably a response to misuses of biology, for example Social Darwinism. However, the skepticism created by those misuses has grown into an exaggerated disregard for reason itself.
“
[*] Article “The New Creationism”
http://www.thenation.com/archive/detail/9706092438