I don't know the best way society can better integrate the knowledge and viewpoints of domain experts into public policy. On one hand, the approach put forth in the article is to speak more candidly and humbly to the public about the decisions proposed by experts. I believe that's a rather idealistic view on how the general population handles this stuff. Plenty of knowledgeable people do speak in plain, straightforward terms about their ideas and proposals, often in less "look at me" outlets, but you don't hear about them because that tone just doesn't capture attention. Instead, all we're left with is the "politician-bureaucrats" who have the knack for selling their message, even if it's watered down for broad consumption.

I do agree that treating science like religion (or at least something akin to the Catholic Church's religious structure) is bad all around. Enough people can see through the veil and call out inconsistencies either in research or in the academic process when it deviates from arguing purely on the merits evidence.

Honestly, with the high availability of information via channels like the internet, I have little sympathy for people who rely on filters such as media outlets to aggregate experts' ideas down to them. It's easier than ever to find and process primary sources, yet we're still arguing about how certain middle[wo]men of information twist and spin news. I just don't think any system that humans try to concoct for disseminating information and knowledge will ever beat simply putting in the time and effort to read and analyze that knowledge at the source, including the energy needed to learn how to process information. Even if a topic is deemed incredibly important by others, I personally try not to form any strong opinions on it until I can verify as much information as feasible about it. I realize asking that of every other human is as idealistic though as what I first called out in the article.