Is Science Advice on Hazards Being Constrained by Demands for Better Predictions?

Can policy and public debates cope with the cold, harsh assessments of where society’s resources should be spent, and the values put on protecting essential needs, communities and life itself? Policy makers look to scientists for increasing certainty in hazard predictions when in fact good decisions can be made where there is some uncertainty. How can scientists bridge this gap to advise policy makers of the best approaches to hazard planning?