What do
policy advocates hope to achieve by arguing in public over scientific points? (knowledge & training issues)
Why do
senior political figures appear to disagree on basic scientific questions when they have ready access to scientific experts and
advisors for clarification?
What are the
effects of such blended scientific and political arguments of the policy-making process.
Misrepresentation of state of scientific knowledge
Exaggerations of the extent & significance of of scientific
uncertainty