Discuss in own words, using the following document, how public policy makers can incorporate scientific input into their strategy to insure policies reflect the best thinking available and policies have a high probability to resolve problems addressed.
It should be noted that public policy makers have used "science" to justify their decisions probably for hundreds if not thousands of years. Throwing "scientific facts" around to make an argument or public policy sound more valid is an old trick that can be useful in bluffing the public. As the article points out however, this is not really effective in the long run because scientists disagree too. Amazingly there is very little consensus regarding basic scientific knowledge. Scientists disagree about the age of the earth, how the moon was formed, whether global warming is actually happening or if it is just a normal cycle, etc. If there is so much disagreement among the scientific community when politics is not involved then how in the world can we expect science to be unified when political ideology is in the mix?
This is a discussion of the role that science does and/or should have in new legislation proposed by Congress. Over 750 words of original text along with links to websites with more detailed information.