Recognizing and navigating legitimate values in science for policy

How is it possible that scientists on opposite sides of a policy-relevant controversy can use the same data and be strengthened in their (opposing) positions? That scientists on opposite sides commonly perceive the other side as biased but see themselves as objective? Insights from the social sciences infer that consensus is not possible and perhaps actually not desirable. This is because value-judgements are not only unavoidable but also a necessary component of rigorous science, particularly in areas replete with uncertainties. The core question is how to sensibly navigate this terrain.