Consider the recent controversy over prostate cancer screening. A Presidential Task Force scaled back recommended testing. But many doctors, citing important cases of detecting cancer, disagreed (Harris, 2011; Brownlee & Lenzer, 2011). Whose judgment should we trust?

New England fish populations are threatened, according to experts. They suggest discontinuing cod fishing. But the fishermen report no decrease in their catches and defend their livelihood (Goodnough, 2011; Rosenberg, 2011). Whose expertise should prevail: the scientists’ with their sampling and its inherent uncertainties, or the fishermen’s with their intimate local knowledge?

There is a lot of alarm about global warming. But maybe it’s all “hot air.” Many political leaders, including several presidential candidates, cite scientific experts who say that the problem is overblown, and just politicized by biased environmental activists. Whose pronouncements should we heed?

As illustrated in these cases, interpreting science in policy and personal...

You do not currently have access to this content.