That doesn't mean it couldn't. The effectiveness of science's influence on government has increased and decreased from one case to the next as different people, organizations, and relationships have come, gone, and changed along the way. Having a particular structure or set of rules for this purpose codified and built into the system could bring consistency.

The problem is with the grouping. Scientists, at least at the high level that would be influencing political entities, are specialists. Qualification in one field does not imply qualification in another. In fact, to me it appears to do the opposite; high-level scientists, the instant they start talking about anything but their own specialties, appear to be even MORE ignorant, antilogical, hypocritical, biased, gullible, and just plain dumb than normal people... and more stubborn and haughty about how obviously indisputably right they are about everything and how laughably silly and pathetic those lesser humans out there who disagree with them are. And, for any given scientist, most political issues will fall outside of his/her area of expertise, which means that if you present political issues to a group of different kinds of scientists, EVERY issue will fall outside of the areas of expertise of MOST of the members.