Bayla--
I am afraid it is you, not I, who have fallen into a trap.  You are
confusing the interpretation and extrapolation of what are popularly
known as "facts" with their determination.  It is the determination,
or discovery, if you like, that is "pure" science, NOT the extrapolations
made on this information.  To use your example of "studies which
'prove' the superiority of one group of people over another," that
great scientist (and creationist) Luis Agassiz devoted quite a bit of
time to taking measurements of people of different races.  The only
science involved in this was demonstrating that one can measure certain
racial characteristics in people.  When Agassiz then wrote about the
superiority of whites over blacks, he was no longer doing pure science,
but using scientifically gained information, twisted to fit his
political and religious views.  None of the many people who have
claimed one group of people to be superior over another have had
"pure" science to back them up, only science which showed people to
be different.  This was true of David Starr Jordan, and just as true
more recently of William Shockley's misuse of I.Q. test scores.
Science can demonstrate differences, science cannot prove what is
"better."
        Absolutely the interpretation of scientific information is
governed by political, religious, and cultural factors.  But before
you paint all science as political, go back to the basic definition
of what science is:  forming a hypothesis which best fits observations,
and then attempting to prove it wrong.  This sounds simple, but it
is very difficult to explain to the public.  And THIS is the big
challenge for museums--how to explain what is science, and what
is not, to a public who did not learn it in school.
 
--John