In the short time since The Golem was first published, it has received a number of reviews. This gives us the opportunity to clear up a source of misunderstanding. The Golem is not meant to be statistically representative of the ordinary science that is done every day in laboratories throughout the world. On the contrary, most science is uncontroversial. Thus, as an introduction to the day-to-day world of science for scientists, the book would be misleading; the average scientist would be lucky indeed (or unlucky!) to be personally involved in the kind of excitement represented here. In spite of this, as we suggest, citizens as citizens need understand only controversial science. One reviewer argues: ‘it is quite easy to think of political decisions with a scientific side to them where the science is non-controversial’ and offers as an example the effect on medical institutions of the development of a predictive test for Huntingdon's disease. But if the science is non-controversial, why do those running the medical institutions need to understand the deep nature of the science that gave rise to the results? If the test is uncontroversially valid they can make their decisions without understanding how agreement about the test was reached. Thus, while thanking our reviewers for the many generous comments about the importance, the informativeness, and they style of the book, we stand by our claim that ‘For citizens who want to take part in the democratic processes of a technological society, all the science they need to know about is controversial. ‘ For this purpose, The Golem represent s science properly.