A chance to think about the intersection of science and policy

Here's a recent article that lists a few facts (cost and amount of mercury recycled), and a few implied and explicit position statements (whether mercury should be recycled, how important is cost versus ecological and human health).

Specifically, the article is saying that the report of one governor strongly supports a mercury recycling program, while the report of another governor has found problems (at least, financial issues) with the program. Are they both right? Are they both wrong? What does the evidence say? Does the reporter have an opinion?

Can students begin to tease out the scientific evidence from stories like this? What are the data to support the various assertions? What information would policy makers need to make the best decision? What do they do when there's evidence pointing both directions?

This seems like a great place to start if students are ready to begin thinking about how the data they are producing is useful, and how it is less directly applicable. What would they think of the article as a scientist? With a policy-maker hat on? As a taxpayer? As a parent of a small child? As a power plant owner?