"Otto's most urgent concern is the overwhelming absense, in both the public and its elected representatives, of the science literacy required to make informed policy decisions. This illiteracy is troubling for many reasons-not the least of which are the consequences of policy based on highly subjective beliefs and assumptions rather than the relevant science..."
"... A key tenet of Jeffersonian democracy is that an educated, well-informed citizenry can be trusted to govern itself. Something has gone worng, Otto argues, when those who are supposed to represent the public are not adequately informed about the science behind important issues yet continue to insist on their beliefs. Such a top-down, empirically empty method of governance, he notes, is closer to the blind ideology of authoritarianism than to democracy...."
When policymakers don't use science to inform their decisions, the policies risk being ineffecient. If we as citizens don't educate ourselves, we lose the power to hold policy makers accountable to this. I'm not a science person and I sort of blindly trust that politicians would keep themselves informed. I feel like environmentalist, conservationists, nutritionists, these kind of activists are constantly fighting policy-makers with science and facts but still rhetoric prevails. Rhetoric like "job creation" when it comes to activists trying to prevent dangerous extraction initiatives and practices.
"...Intriguingly, he considers how both the undeniably authoritarian Christian right and the ostensibly anti-authoritarian postmodernist denial of objective truth have undermined appreciation for science. Otto also takes a look at how corporate interests have confused our sense of science's credibility..."
"...Otto's most intriguing idea, however, is "science debates." in which canidates discuss heir sances on science based policy issues... They believe such public debates will force politicians to ground their opinions in scientific knowledge instead of rhetoric... The cynics among us would argue that bringing this idea to fruition requires the optimism of an Eagle Scout. (Could the protocol of such debates guard against pooliticians' habits of cherry-picking scientific facts at their own convinience? Would the public be willing to educate themselves enough to actually follow the content of the debates?) Yet the assumption that a well-informed people will act in its country's best interest is fundamental to the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy."
The capability of Science and Scientist to be corrupted is just as dangerous as the reliability of feelings rather than facts. What I take from this is that we need to educate ourselves in order to hold policy makers accountable to sound policies.