We have all read how in the days of the USSR, the politicians would dictate to scientists what was "good" science and what was prohibited. These days, the Republican leadership is emulating Soviet leadership with politicians pre-empting scientists in deciding what is "good science" and what is "junk science". Much as the Soviets would use any event as a "hook" for a crackdown on perceived dissidents, the Republican party/FOX News cabal used the "Climategate" non-scandal as a rationale for forcing real climate science to the sidelines, with the result that addressing the Global Warming catastrophe is becoming politically impossible.
Republican politicians today declare that they are the arbiters of the mechanicisms of our environment; atmospheric science and biology are now, according to Rick Perry, poorly understood by scientists but perfectly grasped by Republicans.
The question is: if the Republicans were to control the White House and Congress, what would be the impact on science? Would we return to a Medieval approach to science where what is real is a function of what feels right? Would dissenting scientists be removed from their laboratories as was done in the Soviet Union?
More below
During the heyday of the Soviet Union, Stalin decided that Evolution as described by Charles Darwin, was not compatible with Marxism, and so an alternate approach to Evolution, Lamarckism as expressed by Trofim Lysenko, was adopted.
Lysenko was put in charge of agriculture and proceeded to disrupt the Soviet food supply by attempting to grow, for example, wheat in northern areas in the hope that the cold climate would provoke positive genetic changes in the wheat to adapt to the cold (whereas Evolution is really generated by random mutations, where the organisms that do not produce favorable adaptations simply die out). Lysenko's theories and experiments were failures, and the Soviet Union clearly demonstrated that putting politicians in charge of deciding what is good science does not work.
The Republicans want to return to Lysenkoism - they want the politicians to decide what is "good" science and what is not. As most reasonable people know, the optimal result is obtained when scientists decide, via a rigorous process, what is legitimate science. With the challenges we face today, returning to a Medieval or Soviet-style system with theology or ideology determining what is appropriate in science is a recipe for disaster.
A Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann as the ultimate arbiter of science in this country would be much worse than a George W. Bush deciding that stem cell research is contrary to the wishes of God, regardless of how many patients may die as a result. Science as we know it would be shut down (except, perhaps for geology, since even Republicans want more oil), and a new intellectual Dark Ages could obscure the progress that our civilization has accomplished since the Renaissance.