ABSTRACT
Many scientists, philosophers, and commentators of science have argued that science ought to made responsive to the public, or ought to be “democratized.” This chapter begins by showing that the case for making science responsive to the public compares favorably to the case for making other critical institutions—such as a society's educational or health care system—responsive to the public. It then shows several ways that science is not currently responsive to the public. It concludes by discussing three unresolved philosophical questions that must be answered in order to determine what it would mean for science to be appropriately responsive to the public. The first comes from the importance of looking at science as a complex system; the second and third arise from considering diversity within the public and within the scientific community, respectively.
Readers may be interested in these Handbook chapters as well: Inmaculada de Melo-Martín, “FDA Evidentiary Standards and the Need to Attend to Stakeholders' Values”; Hannah Hilligardt and Torsten Wilholt, “Science and Democracy”; Bennett Holman and T. Y. Branch, “Reflecting on Responses to the New Demarcation Problem”; Karen Kovaka, “Measuring the Public's Values: Are the Data Adequate for Purpose?”.
