The only real attacks on science that get coverage are the ones attacking environmentalism or pre-human evolution. But science does (or at least should) influence politics in a lot more places.
I would go further and say that any scientific topic which has any controversy is "political" by definition. Furthermore, the political dogmas that are held by laypeople almost universally depend on empirical or scientific facts which have not been established or have the imminent potential to be overturned. Political bias has an effect on what research gets funded and/or published, the size of which is correlated to the "softness" of the discipline.
For example, evolution. Not the relatively uncontroversial evolution from (common ancestor) -> {humans, apes}, but evolution within humans after this point. See, e.g. James Watson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson#Provocative_comme...
Or economics. Consider this incident in the US: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/255726-dem-economists-atta...
The only real attacks on science that get coverage are the ones attacking environmentalism or pre-human evolution. But science does (or at least should) influence politics in a lot more places.