[zan]

I think a lot of the problems come from a general misunderstanding of how science is (and must be) done with regard to these issues. Even reading this thread, it is clear that there are a huge variety of opinions on the subject and that I think it is often a huge failing of both the media and scientists that the reality of a lot of the research done isn't presented in a more honest, but understandable way a lot of the time.

One of the big things I think is the notion of certainty, which you can rarely achieve scientifically anyway, but is what people (the public \ media) really want. You wouldn't go into a bookies for example and demand to know which horse will definately win a given race- rather you would take various considerations into account, and accept that you would have to go with the most likely option. Things are similar with scientific work for the most part, and you have to accept that uncertainty will always be present to a greater or lesser degree because it is impossible to take account of all possible permutations at the same time. However, by accumulating more and more data from more and more studies, you can reduce this uncertainty to an acceptable level. (I'm thinking along the lines of climate science here, there are fields and studies that don't require such replication, and others that will need more...). The uncertainty is why you will rarely hear a scientist tell you something is definately true or untrue for example, and the reason why a lot of seeming contradictions can appear.

However, I don't think this is ever really explained to people, and ends up seeming like scientists are just giving wishy washy answers a lot of the time.