(abstract) Scientific Objectivity and the Impact Hazard: Responsible Reporting Versus Crying Wolf

f comets and asteroids on the Earth pose a real hazard, comparable in probability to other hazards which society deems worthy of concern. As such, it is prudent and reasonable to investigate and institute means for evaluation of the exact nature of the hazard and possible means of mitigating the effects of impacts, primarily by preventing their occurrence through orbital deflection. Decisions as to the hazard and possible detection and deflection programs must be made through a rational public discussion of the issues, provided with the best possible information. Unfortunately, some individuals have tended to overstate the problem either in terms of the probability of impact or the expected effects of impacts. The net result of such actions is often to undermine public confidence in those attempting to promote an informal discussion of the impact hazard. This is particularily true in a time of declining budgets for both science and defense, and increased competition for federal R&D dollars. It is thus important that the community find means of promoting responsible actions by the members of the community, and for dealing with public release of information, within the bounds of academic and individual freedom. The purpose of this abstract is to promote a discussion of these issues within the community and to invite additional suggestions for methods to improve the providing of accurate information to the public, the media, and most importantly, to decision makers.