Hope this team is working on ideas. Some thoughts that the team may want to consider....Does it matter if good science is done but not used in decision/policy making? When does science end and science-based decision making begin? Who decides what science gets done? What's the process? How much of the process is traditional science research and how much is something else -- political, social, economic? In the book on the history of oncology, "The Emperor of All Maladies" by Mukhergee, it becomes apparent that cancer research would not get funding to start if the public was not mobilized to see this as an important knowledge gap that needed to be filled. Were the early cancer researchers wrong in making the pitch that eventually created (and funded) the National Cancer Research Institute? Or is cancer just a different science than the kind of science that SETAC scientists are involved in? Just some thoughts to ponder....Hope you have some good discussions!