It's worth noting that while in theory science is apolitical (it's conducted by humans, and not much involving groups of humans is fully apolitical), its applications are not. Science may give us a 'best guess' estimated range of values (e.g.: how long until how much ecological damage from climate change is likely to affect an area) for a matter of interest. Occasionally it gives us a definite answer (e.g.: yes/no, 1+1=2, etc...), but sometimes an estimated range with a confidence interval or similar.
But...what we do with the science gets political fast. An organization like the CDC can draw on research studies and have actuaries calculate things like the estimated odds of one of us catching SARS-Covid-2 on a given trip (say, to Cozumel, or Raja Ampat) despite good preventive practices, the odds of that case being a clinically significant variant, the odds of spreading that variant to other nations (e.g.: bring it up, or infect another traveller bound elsewhere), etc...
What science doesn't do is make the value-based judgment call as to what level of risk is acceptable, and what level is not. So, if I say I'm a 51 year old guy in America who's had both doses of the Moderna vaccine and I'm moderate on prevention practices, and I submit a travel plan to a given destination, they could number crunch my risks. But their analysis won't say what's safe enough (or not) until a human(s) set the bar.
