I think what is missing here is the method with which science is disseminated to the public. Most people have poor scientific backgrounds, and very few people read scholarly journals where science is found. Rather, science enters the mainstream through the media and advocacy groups, each with their own particular agenda (media focused on ratings and sensational headlines, and advocacy groups singularly focused on their pet causes). Science by nature is cautious and complex, which contrasts with the aims of the media and advocacy groups (as well as politicians) to reduce everything to quick soundbites and simplicities accessible to all. If science wants to be taken more seriously, it needs to beware sensationalism, and basic scientific knowledge needs to be improved among the general populace. Nothing bothers me more to read a news report or advocacy group press relief, only to read the report or study that it is based on and find that the report doesn't substantiate any of the claims being told about it.

You've nailed it.

Although I'd add that the advocates characterize their policy prescriptions as the science itself, and characterize opposition to their policy prescriptions as anti-science.

"Science by nature is cautious and complex"

I assume that labels the general public as impulsive and simple.

Now, let's use scientific principles to understand why the general public is impulsive and simple. Why hasn't evolution created a race of cautious, complex creatures?

(an even cooler question is- Why would God make a race of impulsive, simple creatures?)