Many, disappointed with traditional ways to assess and manage health, safety and environmental risks, have sought alternatives that might better serve democratic values and truth. Arthur Kantrowitz proposed one in 1967. Named the 'Science Court' by the media, it sought to air opposing viewpoints publicly before an independent, neutral and technically competent panel of scientists. The idea has received considerable attention over the years, but some see it as too opaque and elitist. Ironically, others may view it as too transparent. Beyond that, as proposed it might have been too time-consuming and expensive, and few scientists would have welcomed a suggestion for cross-examination. Yet, its key features still offer promise for resolving difficult policy disputes and might be usefully integrated with notions since leading to the creation and endorsement of advisory science boards.