Which of these statements is false? 1. The release of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere has contributed to global warming. 2. Free trade has reduced poverty around the world. 3. Hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) does not contaminate groundwater. 4. The federal Head Start program has no long term impact on participants. 5. Vaccines are safe for the vast majority of children and effective in preventing the spread of communicable diseases. 6. Genetically modified crops are safe for consumption. 7. Federal higher education programs have increased the cost of college tuition. 8. Foreign born individuals commit fewer crimes, on average, than native born Americans. 9. A human baby’s heart begins beating three weeks after conception. 10. Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge is safe to visit.

It’s a trick question; they’re all true according to scientific research. Chances are at least one of these statements contained an inconvenient truth that evoked a negative emotional reaction. We are all invested in a little fiction. Why is that?

Unfortunately, feelings sometimes outweigh facts in public policy discourse. For example, several Front Range school boards recently voted to bar student fieldtrips to the soon-to-open Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. The former nuclear weapons manufacturing site went through a decade long clean-up and has been declared safe to visit after many tests for radiation contamination. The opening of the refuge will enable the public to view the tallgrass prairie habitat and wildlife for the first time in decades.

It appears that school boards spent more time consulting activists at the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, an advocacy group that opposes opening the refuge to the public, and less time speaking with experts at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While the safe status of the refuge is backed by scientific consensus, unsubstantiated assertions and anxiety held sway.

Ideally scientific research should play a greater role in the formation of public policy. Science should be the dispassionate counselor to lawmakers as they weigh costs, benefits, interests, and values.

Like all human endeavors, science has its limitations. Scientific findings in and of themselves do not decide public policy. What is does not determine what ought to be, to paraphrase Philosopher David Hume. But facts can provide lawmakers a more accurate perspective to make sound decisions. There will still be disagreements about the best path forward. Scientists can demonstrate a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming but lawmakers must weigh the costs and benefits of joining an international pact to reduce emissions. While science affirms the economic efficacy of free trade, lawmakers must still consider competing interests when they draft trade agreements. Values matter, too. If scientists prove eugenics can improve human health outcomes, lawmakers who believe in human dignity should still reject it outright.

Secondly, science is not static. Facts change. Copernicus’ heliocentric theory replaced the Ptolemaic earth-centered solar system. Kepler’s elliptical orbits replaced Copernicus’ circular ones. Einstein’s theory of relativity amended Newton’s discoveries. In order to advance our understanding of the world, more accurate conclusions must replace older theories. The evolving nature of science does not mean, however, that unscientific musings hold the same weight as scientific consensus. Einstein’s theory can be trusted until a better scientific explanation comes along. If you meet a Ptolemaic astronomer, run.

Scientists are not perfect but the discipline has checks and balances. Peer reviews and attempts to replicate findings ensure that errors are eventually discovered and discredited. Whereas wishful thinking, hunches, political dogma, passionate feelings, and conspiracy theories are untested. Also scientists are competitive. A consensus among competitors provides a measure of certainty. Lawmakers and the public should pay attention to scientific consensus even when it makes us uncomfortable.

Krista Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.