[CliffordK]

I suppose you need the Legalese, at least to some extent.
But it just makes for lots of paperwork, and very dry reading.
And, often a LOT is lost in the legal summaries.

If Case History is the law...  then that needs to be searchable, and 100% available to the people...  not in the realm of Lawyers.

If the "International Building Code", or "Uniform Plumbing Code" is the law...  they should not be copyrighted.

As far as the 2000 page health care package...  Did all of our legislators read 100% of it?  Not skimming...  every word, comma, semicolon, etc.

I suppose we are getting away from the "Science" topic.
I'm not sure if there was an event that started this topic.

I know that the "climate" is somewhere stuck in the middle of science and politics.

And, even in science, there are multiple levels from the real hard-core Ph.D. researcher (in their own field), to the lay-person who knows enough to get themselves into trouble.

In a sense, there is also a problem with how science interfaces with politics and the public.

When I look at the Cryosat-2
http://www.esa.int/esaLP/LPcryosat.html

CryoSat mission, launched on 8 April 2010, is dedicated to precise monitoring of the changes in the thickness of marine ice floating in the polar oceans and variations in the thickness of the vast ice sheets that overlie Greenland and Antarctica.

Scientists can now tap into a flow of new data that will help to determine exactly how Earth's ice is changing. This information from ESA's CryoSat mission is set to make a step change in our understanding of the complex relationship between ice and climate.

So...
My first question is how much ice is there in the Arctic, and how is it changing.
But, a year into the mission, and this answer seems to be very elusive.

There is other data that it is being used for such as sea level monitoring, and looking at individual ice shelves...  and in that sense, it is an excellent tool.  I realize that many research labs are excited about the new information that they can generate...  but they aren't doing a very good job with communicating this back to the people.

One can't just have groups of scientists working away in their basement labs oblivious to the rest of the world. 
And the rest of the world using the latest fascinating gizmos oblivious to the science that went into making them.

And everyone expecting the politicians to make the right fundamental choices.

[graham.d]

One can't just have groups of scientists working away in their basement labs oblivious to the rest of the world. 
And the rest of the world using the latest fascinating gizmos oblivious to the science that went into making them.

An interesting point, but it's always been like that. Several thousand years ago most users of bronze age tools would not have a clue how they were made. Right up to even a few hundred years ago, skills and trades (and the associated knowledge) was protected by Guilds.

It's generally in the nature of scientists and engineers to want to understand how things are made or how they work, but this is not really necessary for everyone. There are many other skills that are not science related and there are many scientists at the top of their field who can't tie there own shoelaces, to coin a phrase. Very few people have the gift of being a true polymath.

[imatfaal]

I suppose you need the Legalese, at least to some extent.
But it just makes for lots of paperwork, and very dry reading.
And, often a LOT is lost in the legal summaries.

Apart from the fact that it is indisputable that a recording will always produce a different sensation from a live performance (whether that is a law report of a trial or a cd of a concert) then I would say this is not correct; legal reporting is a mature art and we have got very good at it; any change in the standard, protocol or volume would entail a substantive change in the law which should be avoided.  And yes it's dry and hard work to read - it's a complicated subject; you cannot do science without maths at anything other than a superficial heuristic level and the parallel applies to the law and the legal language used.

If Case History is the law...  then that needs to be searchable, and 100% available to the people...  not in the realm of Lawyers.

If the "International Building Code", or "Uniform Plumbing Code" is the law...  they should not be copyrighted.

As far as the 2000 page health care package...  Did all of our legislators read 100% of it?  Not skimming...  every word, comma, semicolon, etc.

It is available and searchable - but it is by no stretch of the imagination easy.  How can it be?  You seem to be implying that everything can avail itself of simple and plain explanations; this just is not the case. 

I doubt many of the legislators read all 2000 pages - but that is the power of delegation.  Dozens of letters leave my office, with my name at bottom, for which I bear the legal responsibility, without me reading them; it's matter of trust in the person and in their training and ability.