There can be penalties for being very open and honest. One of the most damning criticisms of the Southwood committee and the bureaucrats who worked with it is that they failed to acknowledge the limits of their expertise. They did not submit their work to a review by other scientists. If you look at the research papers being published in the scientific journals today, two things strike you. In a sense there are no scientists any more, only specialists in different, narrowing branches of science.
Scientists complain that the media distort their message or play scientists off against each other.
Even the tabloid's tabloid was prepared to embrace the precautionary principle. Perhaps the scientists could get their message across better, if only they spoke the media's language. British scientists have warned us that smoking kills since the 1950s, but people are still buying cigarettes, getting lung cancer, and dying. Prof Adams pointed out that the public wanted scientific clarity on beef or mobiles or long distance air travel not to see these things removed from society, but so they could choose whether to use them. It was the sense of risk concealed that gave offence.