Often, very good ideas can float around the government sector for a long time without being taken up and enshrined in legislation or policy. One challenge for science policy professionals is how to present these ideas in a way that is compelling and timely for today’s decision-makers. This can be difficult when there is no good reason that an idea was not adopted in the first place, and its political moment has passed.

A hundred years ago, a worn shirt would get patched, a blunt saw sharpened, a bottle refilled, a nappy washed, a razor blade changed. Now, the market drives us towards disposal. Those who sell products into the economy must have some level of financial or logistical responsibility for their end-of-life management. The potential for private benefit at public cost justifies government intervention.

The voice of scientific expertise was difficult to establish in this emotionally charged Folbigg case. It required a sustained campaign by a team of friends, philanthropists, scientists and legal professionals. The science team worked tirelessly to amass further genetic evidence that explained her children’s deaths and ensure it was, finally, given adequate consideration.

Political expediency cannot defeat the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. If we continue to change the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the world will continue to warm, extreme weather and fire events will become increasingly normal, and humans and other life forms will suffer, greatly. Professor Euan Ritchie argues that what’s needed, more than anything else, is honesty.

The great divide between evidence-based research and government policy is complex. Scientists have been calling on governments to address anthropogenic climate change for decades, seeking policies that align with their research findings, but there has been no rush to respond and, unfortunately, climate change is not the only example of this. So why, despite scientific evidence, does so little translate into policy and action?