not for 'the answer'.
In fact, although science cannot teach one how to predict a specific individual's behaviour, science has taught us quite a lot of things about people: for example, indeed, that the stereotype that 'women aren't as good at math' is not accurate. And that children use multiple strategies when learning maths or reading, and no one teaching method is going to work equally well with all children. And that homosexuality is not a choice. And, going further back, that mental illness is not caused by demonic possession.
As I said in another post, there may be differences between fields of science, and a computer programmer or engineer may be more likely to take a 'one right answer' approach than a biologist or medical scientist or research mathematician. But overall, it is politicians, not scientists as a whole, who tend to wish to oversimplify things; and that may be why not many scientists choose to go into politics.
Of course, there are some scientists who do try to find a single solution for everything, and don't take individual differences, or other multiple factors, into account; but they are bad scientists. Sometimes because they are under pressure from administrators or funding organizations that think that science should be run as a business. Sometimes just because they aren't particularly good at what they do.
I don't think that any particular background, whether in the sciences, the arts, medicine, or any other field is going to make someone a good politician of itself. However, I think that it would be better if more politicians had some sort of background outside politics (or big business) - whether as artists, scientists, doctors, industrial workers (as many British Labour politicians did until Thatcher basically destroyed British industry), teachers, etc., etc.
= new reply since forum marked as read