A common feature of much scientific information reflected in government regulation is its passage directly from the laboratory into government decision without benefit of review and interpretation. This pattern can be attributed to a variety of factors. One is the incentives that lead government agencies to act quickly and conservatively in the name of protection of human health. Another is the relatively lengthy process of traditional review and interpretation via professional meetings and scientific publication. Yet, the case appears very strong for preserving, if foreshortening, the stages of peer review of otherwise unmatured data used in regulation. Several schemes of this sort have been tried in the past few years–some with apparent success. These are discussed alongside the proposal for a science court–a quasi‐Judicial vehicle for rendering judgments about scientific findings.