ABSTRACT
One of the persistent myths among policy-makers is that science is objective.1
Think of the debate over climate change in 2006. The skeptics of the Kyoto process, led by the US policy-makers, stressed the uncertainty of scientific evidence for human activity actually warming the global climate. The promoters of Kyoto, led by the EU policy-makers, emphasized the precautionary principle. Put simply, this means that despite the uncertainties, there is adequate evidence to pinpoint human activity as the prime driver of climate change, which makes scaling down the impact of such activity a reasonable policy. The debate focuses on the reliability of objective scientific evidence: one party says the scientific facts are not adequately reliable, the other party says they are.2
