It seems to me that the biggest problem today isn't misunderstanding science, but misapplying science. Folks seem to come up with formulations like "science says that X causes Y, and thus we must do Z". Regardless of what you might fill into those letters, the statement is a fallacy.

Anyone who believes that policy can directly flow from science is mistaken.

It's the job of science to make predictions: if these circumstances occur, we can expect the outcome to look like that. But this says nothing - can say nothing - in judgment of how good or bad that outcome is.

To create policy, we must weigh the costs and benefits of the various expected outcomes. That's not a scientific exercise, it flows only from our values as individuals and as a society.

So if you're interesting in bringing about a particular policy, or forestalling a different one, the way to do this is by making your case for relative values of the outcomes that science predicts - not to hoodwink people into believing something other than what the science predicts.

Examples of such misapplication:

* Science shows that the climate is changing, caused by human action, such that in 50 years, some coastal cities will have ground level below high tide. Therefore we must do everything possible to limit CO2 emissions.

* Science says that after (whatever) weeks gestation, a human baby could be viable outside the womb. Therefore we must forbid abortions after that term.

In both these examples, a value judgment is being smuggled in that imposes unacknowledged values into the situation. Those values have nothing to do with science, and so the conclusion is a-scientific.

(That's not to say that either of the conclusions is wrong given some values, including possibly the prevailing cultural values. But assuming that is so is certainly anti-scientific.)