Not really, that comes down to false positive rates vs everyone else. AKA it's not that science is always correct, it's that their are zero more accurate options available.
It's the same reason people take bomb threats seriously. Such threats are very often fake, but getting a bomb threat pushes the odds of a bomb vastly above the odds without that threat.
Well, I'm going to have to disagree with this view, which would suggest scientists alone should direct public policy with no counterbalance or role for the rest of us.
Science is only saying what the outcomes will most likely be. That's not the same thing as saying the tradeoffs are worth it.
That said, many things are like useing seatbelts in that the downside risk is vastly more than the upside. Thus, ignorance simply results in worse outcomes.
Science is not about today, it's optimizing over longer than human lifespans.