We live at a time of unprecedented scientific and technological progress, and, yet, there is widespread confusion and concern about the impacts of scientific and technological advances on human health and the environment. Among the highly contested issues are genetically modified (GM) crops, vaccines, endocrine‐disrupting chemicals, pesticides, cell phone electromagnetic emissions, salt intake, obesity, smokeless tobacco, electronic cigarettes, particulate air pollution, hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to extract natural gas, and climate change. It is fair to say that, on many issues, this confusion is not limited to the lay public but also affects government agencies, professional organizations, and the scientific community. One of the dangers of such widespread and persisting confusion about these issues is that it contributes to an increasing public distrust of science, since scientists are seemingly incapable of resolving these controversies. > Studies that link genetics and exposure to certain infectious agents to disease are much more robust than studies linking environmental exposures or dietary factors to disease During the past 5–10 years, much has been written about “distrust of science” and its root causes, with journalists, scientists, physicians, psychologists, and sociologists all contributing to this discussion. While this work contains valuable insights and perspectives on the problem, many authors make sweeping generalizations and lump together disparate questions that involve different methodologies and types of evidence. Reading this literature, it is striking how many commentators conflate controversies about vaccines and autism, GM crops, pesticides, and climate change, as if these were all instances of a single phenomenon. The failure to properly distinguish between these different controversies—and the science pertaining to them—has encouraged a tendency to emphasize the “scientific consensus”, and to assert that “in the end, science, if not individual scientists, tend to get it right”. It is also clear from this literature that many diverse factors are correlated …