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