The knowledge gained by our work as toxicologic scientists ranges from molecular mechanisms to clinical signs of toxicity, from physiologically based pharmacokinetics to tumor counts. The challenge is to find the criteria to accurately and, increasingly, quickly judge which studies are valid and appropriate to affect regulation. Needs for confidentiality place limits on disclosure, but they do not preclude a more even and open approach to data from all sources. The tried and true way, the unfettered peer-review process, is and will continue to be the keystone of scientific progress. Thus, it is slow, sometimes painfully so.
Democracy is a similarly empirical endeavor.
Like science, the process is generally ponderous and tentative, and our laws are often badly out of synchronization with science, a condition regularly exacerbated by swells of public concern. Fueled by a willing press, the public perception of a crisis can rapidly propel new regulations that may never gain a scientific foundation, nor are they repealed when science catches up. Rational or not, an alarmed public, or more often issue advocacy groups, call for immediate action well before any reasoned assessment of what action, if any, is called for. The scientific community is left unprepared. Poor decisions follow, which may have unintended consequences, levy unnecessary expense on taxpayers, and provide no demonstrable benefit for public health or the environment.