![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
When controversy exists in the scientific community on an issue important for public policy, convergence of scientific views is frequently inhibited by partisan intervention. Some scientists have become experts in manipulating partisan politics and some of that expertise has been utilized to increase research funding. The dual role that scientists play in Washington, giving advice on public policies on the one hand, and appealing for research funding on the other, has weakened the influence of establishment scientists in bringing scientific facts to public attention. This weakness has been accompanied by the expanded role of 'public interest scientists.' Massive confusion exists in many issues where scientific uncertainties have been exacerbated by partisan interests and an important slow down in the US Research and Development effort has been noticed. It is a clear responsibility of scientists to communicate the factual basis of decision making in a way that the public will find credible. One proposal to accomplish this, known as the Science Court procedure, is discussed in this paper.