The Coronavirus Crisis has highlighted the complex relationship between Science, Politics and Ethics. Some people think that, if one is to take a plane, one should look forward to the most experienced pilot, and, in the same way, someone experienced in politics should be a better politician than someone inexperienced. Is this really the case, or should we consider that politics involves no special kind of knowledge, but instead a broad, generic kind? In the first case, scientists should have a qualified opinion in decision making about establishing an order of priority to vaccination; otherwise, they are not in better position than any other citizen in discussing such an order. We hold that scientists should have a privileged standing point only insofar the subject concerns facts that could be handled in an empirical way. Their stand is justified not upon ethical and political conceptions, but rather upon empirical evidence that do not consider the evaluation of finalistic choices.