Well science could be politically biased but that is not the argument here. Its more about taste and discretion IMO.
Whilst there is no point on putting him on, the BBC are in an awkward position.
There are many on here who seem to think science is politically biased and would think it ludicrous that only people who know what they are talking about get to argue about science. They should have handled the vaccine debate by saying it was a corrupt doctor will to see kids die to boost his profits, and papers willing to see kids die to sell more papers. Imagine the BBC then arguing they were not biased.
This is the flip side of that coin.
Of course, a comparison could be made in global warming terms if perhaps there was a climate disaster ie hurricane or tsunami and they had someone on saying 'well it serves the idiots right for living there'.