Abstract
I argue that the title question needs to be taken seriously because there are important questions about how the scientific agenda should be set. Natural answers to the question – declarations of the proper autonomy of science or expressions of faith in market forces – are found inadequate. Instead, I propose a form of democracy with respect to scientific research that will avoid the obvious dangers of a tyranny of ignorance. I conclude with some modest proposals about how the ideal of a democratic science might be implemented and with a response to common objections.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
There are numerous informative histories of the early Royal Society that describe the ways in which contemporaries reacted. See, for example, Purver M (1967) The royal society: concept and creation. Routledge, London.
Bush V (1995) Science: the endless frontier, reprinted edition. National Science Foundation, Washington DC.
I heard this story from Gordon Conway, in a symposium at Columbia University, in 2002.
This is my own impression of what occurs at multi-disciplinary conferences, where the future of scientific research is discussed.
Flory JH, Kitcher P (2004) Global health and the scientific research agenda. Philos Public Aff 32:36–65.
Ibid.
See Allen G (1978) Thomas Hunt Morgan: the man and his science. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
I present this ideal in Chapter 10 of my book Science, Truth, and Democracy (2001, Oxford University Press, New York).
Acknowledgement
Thanks to John Weckert for the invitation to write a paper on this topic, and for his helpful comments on an earlier version.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kitcher, P. Scientific Research–Who Should Govern?. Nanoethics 1, 177–184 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0019-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0019-2