They rarely communicate with colleagues in differing disciplines. Scientists need to come forward, not only with what they know as technicians, but with what they've concluded as people with a great deal of experience. As a decision maker, I want to hear all sides of an issue, weigh the evidence, and then make the decision. Those who would have me decide in their favor should be focused on an identifiable goal. They should be able to clearly enunciate what it is they want to accomplish.
Environmentalists tend to be of a different mind.
We're a diverse group, so diverse it often appears we don't have a clear goal. Too often we give the perception that we believe all human actions are bad, which is a losing proposition for our concerns. We Must Ask Serious Questions Another barrier to success is the prevailing thought that a safe level of exposure exists for all substances. Our environmental protection agencies are founded on such thoughts, even though toxic discharge standards are quite often the result of compromise, and not always realistic standards to assure human safety. Science cannot determine 'safe' levels of toxins, so government agencies, environmental lobbyists, and the polluters all respond identically, pretending that 'safe' levels of toxics have been determined and that only 'good science' has been employed in the process.