Well said. Perhaps we should change the word "science" to "scientific endeavors", to remind us that we are concerned about the oppression of people, which would include both scientists and non-scientists. That term would also reduce the sense of elitist polarization common in "Science", that Sam mentioned.
To rehash my problem with "Science", look at the scientific axiom, "Garbage in, garbage out". Science has input and output. To talk about "the results of science", as some versions of the draft speak of, improperly omits awareness of input, which I feel is where most of all the problems of science lie.
I would suggest not using the COI - conflict of interest - phrase in the mission statement. It implies that there is a conflict-free, or "pure" and politically neutral science. One of the primary tasks of SftP, from the beginning, was to challenge that notion of purity, which is so prevalent among students and teachers and practitioners of science.
One can and should talk about "interests" that motivate scientific activity. (In my class, years ago, I would start out by saying that when I speak of "science" I do not mean a body of knowledge but rather a chosen human activity.) One can identify the particular interests of large corporations and of military establishments in their promotion of particular lines of work in science. One can say, in contrast, that SftP identifies its interests as aligning with the needs of people, the great majority of people, who are outside of and often under the painful domination of those brutes.