Decisionmakers need to have a better understanding and an appreciation of the scientific process. In addition, we must ensure that the science underlying regulatory, judicial, legislative, and other decisions provides an adequate basis for decisionmaking, and agencies must become better at planning and implementing well-structured and comprehensive research programs that get the answers decisionmakers need. Agencies must also do a better job of instituting strong peer review of the science buttressing regulatory decisions. Enhancing the role of peer review will help improve the credibility of the science either conducted or supported by each agency and minimize the chances that science will be mischaracterized to support a particular policy objective. Decisionmakers in the three branches of government also need to develop an appreciation of scientific uncertainty.
People have a tendency to look to science to provide concrete answers to specific problems.
However, in many cases the science is not advanced enough to provide clear-cut answers to pressing questions. And just as often the scientific question does not lend itself to certitude. Understanding what science can and cannot deliver is critical to making good decisions. If we can achieve these goals, then I believe we can improve the quality of the decisions we as a society and a government make and go a long way toward reducing the tensions among the regulatory agencies, Congress, and the Courts and the people they serve. Before closing, I would like to thank my good friend, Vern Ehlers, for all this hard work in organizing these hearings and for putting together such impressive panels of witnesses including today s.