I think his point is none of our politicians have any sort of background in areas that they are still passing legislation on.

Yea, scientists have degrees in areas of science and politicians have degrees in political science (or law or business or w/e), but most science doesn't have a direct impact on the general population (which includes people with backgrounds in all fields), it's much more indirect via R&D that gradually becomes new technology. Which isn't usually determined "good" or "bad" by the people who discover it as it is, but rather by those who choose to use it the way they personally see fit (which is usually, again, politicians). Politics by its nature impacts everyone directly through the legislation that's passed. So how can men who know little to nothing about the laws of physics and nature be responsible for determining the value of the space program (I take it this is NDT's main concern)? Or those who have absolutely no background in biochemistry or biomechanical engineering shut down stem cell research based purely off of irrelevant ideologies?

So yea, it doesn't make sense for scientists to enter into politics, but that doesn't mean politicians shouldn't have to inform themselves on subject areas they'll most certainly have to deal with time and time again. And NDT didn't enter the limelight until he became this political figurehead and science advocate that we're all familiar with. He has his roots in science and research (studied under Carl Sagan at one point, I think Cornell?), but he's managed to incorporate both of these aspects into his life quite successfully.