Scientific thinking today is fundamental for decision making, particularly in technical matters. Scientists have become direct advisors to the government in different areas: health, the preservation of the environment, climate change, social behavior, even political currents. In the past, however, the idea that science is neutral has not always been appropriate for many moments of crisis and has been the basis for many social reforms, since by appealing to its neutrality, conflicting issues had been addressed. Science has become, the disguise of mere opinion (without sustenance) making its arguments more socially acceptable.
But when it is convenient, politicians have no limitations to discredit science and scientific data to prioritize public opinion when it is favorable for decision making. For example, the argument against tobacco, which from the scientific angle was clear as a factor of damage to public health, but economically, was harmful to the economy. It took years before, in different countries, science managed to impose itself on political thought and its perks.
It is clear that, to the traditionalist political position, it is not interested in using data and figures extracted from research, giving more value to the "opinion of the experts" on that of the "scientists", mass education has also been a controversial point, This reveals realities and promotes rights, which, at times, do not suit political interests.
Nowadays, it is considered that information is a right, and that scientific information is a duty, unfortunately, in most countries, the ideology that scientifically constructed thought prevails, opinions and positions weigh more than the hypothetical refutation and the scientific rigor. Most of the politician debates, arguments are rarely investigated.
Even so, in its own right, science has gained a position in decision making, and at least, scientific positions today, are a matter of discussion and debate in all countries, in the parliamentary sphere.
