Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:53:43.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the Democratization of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Daniel Lee Kleinman
Daniel Lee Kleinman*
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
Get access

Abstract

Discussions of democratic involvement in science and technology are often marred by lack of clarity and consequent misunderstanding. In an effort to move beyond the bickering of the “science wars,” I outline several dimensions across which it is possible to distinguish cases of democratized science. In addition, I provide evidence from varied cases, which suggests that the inability of laypeople to grasp the subtle content, difficult concepts, and methodological complexity of science is not a valid basis for a priori rejection of efforts to democratize science. I suggest that the real obstacles to the democratization of science are rooted in widespread social and economic inequalities and an unexamined commitment to expert authority, and I provide some rudimentary proposals for overcoming these hurdles.

Type
Science and Democracy
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , September 1998 , pp. 133 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnstein, S. (1969). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” American Institute of Planners Journal 35 (July):216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachrach, P. (1975). “Interest, Participation and Democratic Theory.” In Pennock, J.R. and Chapman, J.W., Public Participation in Politics. New York: Lieber-Atherton.Google Scholar
Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics in a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Barns, I. (1995). “Manufacturing Consensus? Reflections on the UK National Consensus Conference on Plant Biotechnology.” Science as Culture 5:203–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijker, W., Hughes, T., and Pinch, T., eds. (1989). The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. (1996). Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Breyer, S. (1993). Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Mikkelsen, E. (1990). No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and Community Action. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carmen, I. (1992). “Debates, Divisions, and Decisions: Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Authorization of the First Human Gene Transfer Experiments.” American Journal of Human Genetics 50:245–60.Google Scholar
Carmen, I. (1993). “Human Gene Therapy: A Biopolitical Overview and Analysis.” Human Gene Therapy 4:187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claeson, B. et al. (1996). “Scientific Literacy, What It Is, Why It's Important, and Why Scientists Think We Don't Have It: The Case of Immunology and the Immune System.” In Nader, L. (ed.), Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clarke, A. and Fujimura, J., eds. (1992). The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. and Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: What Everyone Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cramton, R. (1972). “The Why, Where, and How of Broadening Public Participation in the Administrative Process.” Georgetown Law Journal 60:3.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. (1988). The New Politics of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. with Preston, T. and Pfund, N. (1988). Worse than the Disease: Pitfalls of Medical Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1991). “Democratic Science? AIDS Activism and the Contested Construction of Knowledge.” Socialist Review 91:35–64.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1995). “The Construction of Lay Expertise: AIDS Activism and the Forging of Credibility in the Reform of Clinical Trials.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 20 (4):408–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. (1996). Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Garson, G.D. and Smith, M.P., eds. (1976). Organizational Democracy: Participation and Self-Management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gelhorn, E. (1972). “Public Participation in Administrative Proceedings.” Yale Law Journal 81:67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, M. (1984). “The Life Sciences and the Public: Is Science Too Important to Be Left to the Scientists?” Politics and the Life Sciences 3:28–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, M., ed. (1986a). Governing Science and Technology in a Democracy. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Goggin, M. (1986b). “Governing Science and Technology: Reconciling Science and Technology with Democracy.” In Goggin, M. (ed.), Governing Science and Technology in a Democracy. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Goodell, R. (1979). “Public Involvement in the DNA Controversy: The Case of Cambridge, Massachusetts.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 27:36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heberkin, T. (1976). “Some Observations on Alternative Mechanisms for Public Involvement: The Hearing, Public Opinion Poll, the Workshop, and the Quasi-Experiment.” Natural Resources Journal 16:197–212.Google Scholar
Indyk, D. and Rier, D. (1993). “Grassroots AIDS Knowledge: Implications for the Boundaries of Science and Collective Action.” Knowledge 15:3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. et al., eds. (1995). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jennings, B. (1986). “Representation and Participation in the Democratic Governance of Science and Technology.” In Goggin, M. (ed.), Governing Science and Technology in a Democracy. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Kleinman, D. (1995). “Why Science and Scientists Are under Fire---and How the Profession Needs to Respond.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (September 29):B1–B2.Google Scholar
Kleinman, D. and Kloppenburg, J. (1991). “Aiming for the Discursive High Ground: Monsanto and the Biotechnology Controversy.” Sociological Forum 6: 427–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1982). Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the Recombinant DNA Controversy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1984a). “Beyond Technocracy: New Routes for Citizen Involvement in Social Risk Assessment.” In Petersen, J. (ed.), Citizen Participation in Science Policy. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1984b). “Epistemic Considerations on the Value of Folk-Wisdom in Science and Technology.” Policy Studies Review 3 (2):246–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1986a). “Local Control of Research Involving Chemical Warfare Agents.” In Goggin, M. (ed.), Governing Science and Technology in a Democracy. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S. (1986b). “Research Under Community Standards: Three Case Studies.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 11:14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laird, F. (1993). “Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 18:341–61.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lear, J. (1978). Recombinant DNA: The Untold Story. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar
Levitt, N. and Gross, P. (1994a). Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, N. and Gross, P. (1994b). “The Perils of Democratizing Science.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 5): B1–B2.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. (1984). “Science and Technology Policy and the Democratic Process.” In Petersen, J. (ed.), Citizen Participation in Science Policy. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts PressGoogle Scholar
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation in Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, J., ed. (1984). Citizen Participation in Science Policy. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1951). The Logic of Liberty: Reflections and Rejoinders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962). “The Republic of Science.” Minerva 1:54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadker, M. and Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and Technology. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sclove, R. (1996). “Town Meetings on Technology.” Technology Review (July).Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (1994). A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Singer, M. (1977). “The Involvement of Scientists.” In National Academy of Science, Research with Recombinant DNA: An Academy Forum. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1982). “Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgement under Uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waddell, C. (1989). “Reasonableness Versus Rationality in the Construction and Justification of Science Policy Decisions: The Case of the Cambridge Experimentation Review Board.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 14:7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1994). Molecular Politics: Developing American and British Regulatory Policy for Genetic Engineering, 1972--1982. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1996a). “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Divide.” In Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., and Wynne, B. (eds.), Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1996b). “Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” In Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (eds.), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar