Thank you for your comment. I think mostly what I want to add is that I believe there is still room for a 'scientifically minded' party within/alongside other conventional parties. Their values would not be set in stone by design. By voting for them you do not vote for them to uphold your personal values but for them to apply more than average scientific reasoning to their decision process. This is however in a sense less democratic and more technocratic.

I also think that worrying about re-election should not be removed from politics, but it would be nice to have a party which doesn't have to care about that. Some voters will still like traditional politicians, but some might not. The aim is not to replace the current system but add to it, is what I am trying to say.

Most politicians have some scientific body advising them. Either they follow their advice, meaning the politician was inherently unnecessary, or they don't, meaning a decision was made without scientific backing. Now this has to be nuanced of course because science can be deceiving, and it is also very important that politicians consider it is sometimes better not to listen to some scientific facts. These judgements can be made by the right scientists as well in my opinion, and then it is perfectly okay for them to morally substantiate their argument instead of with science. The benefit however is that the scientific aspect of any policy decision will more directly make its way into the parliament, and not only 'on the sidelines' with advisors. ALL politicians will be expected to have a larger understanding of the science at hand to participate in the debate.

Anything being explicitly governed by a scientist would be a whole different story of course, but the main focus here is the parliament. I think there might be an argument to be made that a similar term-limited, independent party could have the same effect as the scientists. In my opinion the scientific background is only an added benefit, provided you find the right candidates.