ABSTRACT
The practice of public policymaking is a complex process and has been shaped by growing globalization and relations of governance. The mainstream accounts of the policy process have assumed a rather straightforward link between findings of science and the public policy process. From fact finding to problem definition and proposing alternatives to implementation, scientists and experts have contributed to the policy process to a significant extent. However, the authority of science and neutral experts has long been challenged from the 1970s onwards. Interpretive approaches to policy analysis, for instance, have contributed to the development of an understanding of the role of ideas, narratives and discourses in shaping the policy process and policy change. The second wave of science and technology studies also followed suit and highlighted the social character of science and technology, and their embedded assumptions. The most distinctive proposal of the second wave was the participation of stakeholders in the policy process. Yet again, a third wave of criticisms questioned the role of lay people in the policy process and had a more sceptical stance towards ‘levelling of the epistemological playing field’ with the decline of expertise. A number of high-profile events, such as MMR vaccines and Brent Spar stirred the debate concerning the role of experts and the lay people in the policy process. However, there are a number of objections to third wave arguments as well. At the end of the day, although the role of experts, as in the case of complex models on climate change, is vital, people have made important contributions in the field concerning 34implementation. Democratization of the policy process is vital, and expertise needs transparency, not blind trust.
