Science Policy
Some scientific research costs little compared to the pain suffering and expense that new techniques can prevent. At the same time, much basic reasearch may not produce products that can be sold, and thus might never be supported by business. A progressive, science policy that combines both utilitarian science, and inexpensive basic science and technology development can thus help people quite a bit.
When public policy and large financial or other stakes are in the balance, vested interests will often resort to 'junk science' to support their positions. But few among the general public can judge whether science is junk or not. Many people choose simply to disregard the results of any research that was not conducted and paid for by disinterested parties, a tactic that often excludes most or all of the scientific evidence that exists on an issue.
Consider the following example. A company is releasing a chemical into a stream. Environmentalists offer "scientific evidence" that the chemical is harmful in the amounts being released. The company offers "scientific evidence" that the release is harmless. Unable to evaluate the science, the public is liable to weigh the evidence according to their prejudices--for example, that companies or that environmentalists are never to be trusted. In the face of such disputes, the government may call for an independent scientific assessment. But this is not so tidy a solution as it looks. A dispute may then erupt regarding the composition of the assessment committee, whether about the independence of particular scientists or about the balance between committee members who tend toward one side or the other. See the related article on the scientific method.