This is an essay on a pressing issue that is crucial to societal decision-making on an wide range of policy issues, from climate change to the war against terrorism: the politicization of science. It deals with the relation between science and policy-making in science-based regulation of chemical risk, but its purport is much broader. Specifically, I use a hypothetical case of a category of potentially hazardous chemical substances, called the Improbable Disruptors, to illustrate the various ways in which science can be influenced by special interests and explained to politicians, and how the metaphysical rules of science and the presentation of scientific information can be used to influence government policies and regulatory decisions. In the case presented here, the government of a hypothetical nation, Demonata, is faced with a decision on how to manage the potential hazards of the Improbable Disruptors. To ensure its decision is well informed, it seeks counsel from four scientific advisers, who present diverging opinions on the science relevant to the decision the Demonata government faces, and on the course of action the government should adopt. The conduct of science (and of scientists) and the translation of scientific information for policy-making may reflect deeper philosophical, social, and political beliefs or convictions. This essay shows how these beliefs and convictions may color science and the advice provided by scientists on a specific policy issue. It is intended to demonstrate how the content of both science and scientific advice may vary as a function of beliefs; it does not present fledged analysis of the issue of 'politicization' of science, and does not attempt to fully evaluate the four scientific opinions provided to the Demonata government. Rather, this essay is intended to reinvigorate the debate on politics' role in science and science's role in policy-making by demonstrating how the practice is evolving. Throughout this essay, the reader is invited to identify and reflect on the actions of the various players, the key issues arising the science-policy interface, the differences between the opinions discussed, and the origins and reasons for these differences. Based on his/her own analysis, the reader is asked to answer the key question posed at the end of the essay: if you were the government of Demonata, what would you do, and why would you do so?
