Traffic safety at the intersection of ethics and epistemology

Being wrong is fundamental to scientific progress.  Ecologists, like other scientists, have a long history of being wrong.  Negative consequences of scientific error - for scientists - are usually marginal: mild embarrassment, wasted time, misguided effort.  However, when ecologists advise decision-makers, consequences of scientific error can be large, for the decision-makers themselves, for the societies they serve, and for the ecological entities they are responsible for.  Do moral obligations of ecologists change outside the ivory tower?  Should the epistemological standards used in routine scientific inquiry be altered or adjusted when consequential decisions are at stake?