The field of science incorporates multiple institutional settings, methodological and disciplinary actions which are conducted to transform a potential catalyst into political dispute. This is a simple linear formulation which directs more science towards less uncertainty and then towards political action which are inherently inconsistent. Some individuals have suggested that society must adopt new methods of thinking regarding the application and utilization of science. Moreover new ways are being evaluated as to how science is valid or potentially useful for humanity and environment. Various new institutions are mediating in this process through which science can integrate political decision making along with policy making. Further temporal and geographical scales are being designed for utilizing science to its fullest potential.
The underlying value of all this discussion is understanding the focus of the problem and then applying relevant scientific knowledge for finding solutions to the identified problems. However it is observed that social complexity can be integrated with diverse political decision making process. If a particular problem is identified then all probable approaches are taken for handling this situation tactfully. Hence the main concern of all this discussion is to explore the question why some scenarios become so difficult that political controversies transform them into scientific dilemmas while others do not. Some of the controversial topics include global climatic change, genetically modified foods or nuclear waste disposal. All these controversies are explained through scientific debates but in the end it is apparent that the underlying facts get concealed behind technical arguments (Agency, 2002).
Concluding all this it can be asserted that various researchers have devised methods for integrating values into environmental research and have also developed experimental scenarios for predicting future evolution of society and environment. Such experimental environment undergoes different sets of varied conditions. Further it is required by the scientists and policy makers to articulate real alternatives by applying valid models for future losers and winners. All these approaches will become substantial when the values are adjusted according to the scenarios provided and decisions are taken through estimation of scientific arguments. The fact is not to stripe off the scientific debate from political and environmental concerns but to force politicians to take appropriate action for handling such critical situations. Once science is neglected and decisions are taken; then the accountability does not rely with the science or the scientists but it is the own intention and interests of the politicians. Hence we need to enforce accountability towards politicians so that they should take proper political reforms towards reducing environmental pollution and hazards.