The Page One article ("Obama rebuked over science," July 12) addressed concerns by various scientists that the Obama administration is disregarding science in decision-making to the same extent as did the Bush administration. Unfortunately, views of many of the scientists quoted in the article seem based on the false premise that science can provide unequivocal answers to difficult questions, and on the belief that their own answers (which the administration is ignoring) are the correct ones.

In reality, science is in nearly all cases incapable of providing black-or-white, yes-or-no answers. Peer-reviewed findings are most commonly presented as being "statistically significant," which means they meet certain criteria for what is most likely to be true. More often than not, multiple studies of the same phenomena may reach different conclusions. In essence, on most scientific issues, there exists some black, some white and a large gray area in between.

Decision-makers, be they bureaucrats or politicians, regularly indicate to their constituents, in good faith, that their actions will be science based, only to be dismayed by the uncertainties that science reveals. Decades ago, our own Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski was quoted in Science magazine (August 1975) calling for "one-armed scientists," as a result of her frustration with scientists testifying before her repeatedly saying "…on the one hand the evidence is so, but on the other hand……"

Perhaps of greater concern may be the scientists who feel so strongly about an issue that they choose to disregard or downplay findings that increase the uncertainty in, or place into question, their own conclusions. A telling example of such bias for a position is the complaint of some scientists in the article about being instructed not to overstate impacts of dams on salmon. Taking umbrage at being told to not overstate a finding is not the same thing as being told to downplay or ignore a finding, it may simply be a caution to avoid advocacy.

In recognition of scientific uncertainties, some of the most controversial issues are often assigned by decision-makers to panels of scientists with differing views on a topic, who then debate the validity and relevance of various findings with the intent of developing a consensus. Such a process takes considerable time, much to the dismay of managers and advocates for action, and in the end may still result in dissenting opinions of some panel members.

So what is the poor decision-maker to do? A rush to judgment may result in inappropriate actions being taken that have irreversible, undesirable outcomes, particularly in environmental matters. Delay in taking action may result in irreparable harm occurring. The best they can do is seek input from diverse but qualified sources and make informed decisions. Given the scientific credentials of Obama administration agency administrators, I have every reason to believe this is the path they are following.

William Richkus, Catonsville