Credit: fortheloveofcc/Flickr Debating science in a court setting may boost public trust Holding science-based courtroom debates could help educate and engage citizens in shaping public policy.Arik Shams, Leana King and Joy Liu write for Undark.In short:A citizens' jury on genome editing, funded by Wellcome Trust, exemplified a non-traditional method of public engagement in science policy.Trust in scientists has declined significantly, highlighting the need for inclusive decision-making involving both experts and the public.Science courts, modeled on the U.S. court system, could address policy questions with scientific expertise to foster informed public trust.Why this matters:Improving public trust in science through participatory methods can lead to better-informed health policies and greater societal acceptance of scientific advancements. Read more: EPA’s “scientific integrity” program lacks teeth, group alleges.Keep reading...Show less
Politics www.bloomberg.com Will judges have the last word on climate change? In the fight against climate change, one tool is proving increasingly popular: litigation.
Politics www.theatlantic.com The government is silencing kids hurt by climate change The U.S. has a climate policy, and it wants the Supreme Court to enforce it. That policy: No such thing.
www.washingtonpost.com William D. Ruckelshaus: Pruitt is turning his back on transparency at the EPA The agency should be a fishbowl, not a black box — or it will crumble.
As Biden prepares to block the sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel, pollution concerns persist in Pennsylvania
A Pennsylvania fracking company with more than 2,000 environmental violations selected for federal environmental justice funding
