This is the complete opposite of much of art. I do think that, try as it might to be otherwise, the process of science is subjective. The people doing the science have good days, bad days, get sick, have petty quarrels with their colleagues, and the course of scientific discovery is inevitably influenced. This 'humanizing' of the process of science makes for an interesting comparison with art. The processes of both art and science are intensely human endeavors, subject to our very changeable human nature.
Science aims for an objective truth and gets dirty along the way through the subjective process.
Both are languages for interpreting the world, but come to a discovery from opposite directions. There are differences between art and science. Naturally I have more questions than answers. But this doesn't mean that the practice of science is sterile. And real sociopolitical forces shaped his perceptions of the enterprises of art and science.