Well, there is in fact a conflict here. But I wouldn't call it "anti-science". In fact, there is nothing to do with anti science.
A party is elected by people that care about certain things more than others at certain time. In order to maintain their position, a political party in power must adjust and design their policy/aim.
Now, everything costs money. Say, you want cleaner electricity? More money. Better health care? More money. Money is limited, and you can't do everything. So you have to put your money and force on what's currently more important.
Now comes the conflict. Say, a government's priority is on economy, and try to decrease tax. Then they can't allow things that'll clearly negatively affect the economy/taking-more-money-from-our-pocket to happen. Now, those scientists are hired by government, and hence is part of the government. How can you, as a government, allow your departments and or ministers/important-members to have conflict publicly shown without beautifying what's happening or coordinating inside? When there're conflict of interest between departments, you'll need to decide what to do, and that can take time. If a government scientist suddenly come out publically and say something strong against a public policy, then the party in power will at once be attacked by oppositions, whatever reason they use.
Government need a united voice to show a clear path of where it's going. Otherwise, it's just adding problems to the political side while policies are STILL going to be made based on political concern, or even more so if the party in power is under serious attack as they now will need to perform even more politically benefitial policies.
Right or wrong is not absolute in this case. And I personally don't think the new web site will add much since those are really not most people's concern. Or at least, so I think.