Mark B. Brown, Science in Democracy. Expertise, Institutions, and Representation

摘要: In January 2011, German science policy advisers at federal level, the 2008 appointed National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, produced a cautious but positive review pre-implantation genetic screening (http://www.leopoldina.org/en/policy-advice/recommendations-and-statements/national-recommendations/praeimplantationsdiagnostik-pid.html - accessed 21 April, 2011). Immediately, advice was attacked as an example politics-contaminated, instead value-free science. But simultaneously, many seasoned came to rescue and defended that clearly spoke present political debate; thus also addressed normative pragmatic issues. The response keep ‘value-free’ is typical tradition politics under high modernity in system representative democracy. Scientific experts are seen ‘delegates’ citizens’ best judgment on issue; delegation occurs public accountability elected legislative bodies or executive accountable such bodies. present, democratization expertise, engagement direct participation more popular dominant response. This partly rooted social theories arguing shift from government governance. If state unable represent all concerns questions involving uses technology fragmented inchoate ‘protopublic’ (Dewey), directly participatory deliberative routes for (individual) citizen influence become attractive. Therefore, unlikely alliance egalitarian STS scholars, radical analysts science, democratic theorists, promoters science-driven industrial innovation some bureaucrats have come effectively promote (Caswill 2010; Wesselink Hoppe sentence: democratic, democracy scientific (In ‘t Veld 2010).