Although I haven't worked in astronautics for about 10 years since I discovered the joys of flight test, I still routinely come across many papers on work done in the Orbiter - albeit on the technology level.
The political point made by Luke isn't a new one. The fact is NASA decided to go in a particular way which isn't particularly cost-efficient in terms of pure science done. However it has allowed huge flexibility and statistically a good level of safety and success given the complexity of the technology. It has also forced the development of technologies that as mankind expands outwards, will be essential. You could argue that they should be working more on STS' successor, but you can't deny the huge effect the programme has had on world science.
Incidentally he's also wrong; probably the most prestigious basic science journal in the world is "Nature" and a quick search on their website found a huge number of papers where shuttle work is mentioned. I can't say I understand many of the titles, but I'm an Engineer not a biologist so this is unsurprising - I can certainly see the significance of papers like "Effect of microgravity on the crystallization of a self-assembling layered material" which is big stuff in semiconductor technology.
I suppose it's inevitable that the accident will cause a lot of open discussion, and some political points will be aired. So I'll make one of my own. I am British, and for my entire adult life I have lived under governments that have never seen any benefit in participating in manned spaceflight. That upsets me.
G