The basic problem I see with the premise is that economics is inextricably linked to things like politics, philosophy, etc. which can't be quantified. Science is about what can be observed and empirically recorded. Take for example the current tax reform legislation (not offering an opinion on it either way just using it as an example). The primary criticism is that it's unfair to low- and middle-income earners and disproportionately favors the wealthy. How do you scientifically determine "fair" and "favor"? You can present numerical arguments for both sides. The closest you could come to a scientific model would be to base it on efficiency, which would probably end up looking like basic Darwinism ("survival of the fittest"). The moment you begin taking things like civil rights into account you've crossed over from science to philosophy. Not that that's a bad thing; our embracing of metaphysics like philosophy is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.