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?

The Australian government recently released a new National Science Statement, aiming to shape “science policy and leadership across governments, in our labs, in research institutions and in boardrooms”. Don Williams critically assesses the Statement, locating positive elements and potential risks, and examining links to the broader policy agenda.

While consumers might express concerns for the environmental impacts of disposable plastic bottles, these do not translate to major changes in purchasing behaviour. In other words, knowing that plastic bottles pollute our environment isn’t enough to stop people buying water in plastic bottles. Without intervention, the popularity of bottled water seems unlikely to weaken.

The transformative power of science suggests it should play a fundamental role in developing public policy, ensuring science informs debates about issues such as sustainable energy production, ecosystem protection, and genetic modification of food. However, using scientific knowledge to inform policy debate is not straightforward.