Advertisement

Metascience

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 45–61 | Cite as

Votes and lab coats: democratizing scientific research and science policy

Wiebe E. Bijker, Roland Bal, and Ruud Hendriks: The paradox of scientific authority: The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009, 223pp, $32 HBMark B. Brown: Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009, 354pp, $29 PBMassimiano Bucchi: Beyond technocracy: Science, politics and citizens. Translated by Adrian Belton. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009, 106pp, €99.95 HBMichel Callon, Pierre Lascoumes, and Yannick Barthe: Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009, 287pp, $37 HBPhilip Kitcher. Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011, 270pp, $28 HB
  • Gürol IrzıkEmail author
  • A. Faik Kurtulmuş
Survey Review
  • 336 Downloads

On December 19, 1984, the US Department of Energy selected, based on a 10-year research project, ten long-term geologic repository sites for 70,000 mt of nuclear waste. A year later, after taking into account expert reports, President Ronald Reagan reduced the candidate sites to three: Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, TX; and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In 1987, Congress directed the Department of Energy to study only Yucca Mountain. Despite strong opposition from the people of Nevada, environmentalists, and some senators in Congress, President George W. Bush signed a resolution in July 23, 2002 that gave the go-ahead to establish a nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the US Geological Survey experts investigated, and often had strong disagreements about, issues regarding the safety of the facility and the standard levels for radiation emission. In 2006, the project budget was drastically cut. The Department...

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Aslı Işın Canıbek and Emily Coolidge Toker for their research assistance and editorial inputs.

References

  1. Carrier, M., D. Howard, and J. Kourany. 2008. The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Douglas, H. 2009. Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Epstein, S. 1996. Impure science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Etzkowitz, H. 2008. The triple helix. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaskell, G., S. Stares, and A. Allansdottir, et al. 2010. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change. European Commission, Eurobarometer, EUR 24537 Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union.Google Scholar
  7. Gibbons, M., et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Hays, S. 2011. Review: The paradox of scientific authority by W. E. Bijker, et al. Review of Policy Research 28: 221–222.Google Scholar
  9. Irwin, A., and B. Wynne. 1996. Misunderstanding science?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Irzik, G. 2007. Commercialization of science in a neoliberal world. In Reading Polanyi for the 21st century: Market economy as a political project, ed. A. Bugra, and K. Agartan, 135–153. New York: Palgrave MacMillian.Google Scholar
  11. Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kourany, J. 2010. Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krimsky, S. 2004. Science in the private interest. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Lessig, L. 2011. Republic lost. New York: Grand Central.Google Scholar
  15. Longino, H.E. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mirowski, P., and E.-M. Sent. 2008. The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed, ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 635–689. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Rethinking science. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  18. Popper, K. 1965. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  19. Radder, H. ed. 2010. The commodification of academic research. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Wolin, S. 2008. Managed democracy and the specter of inverted totalitarianism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wynne, B. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk, environment and modernity, ed. S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne, 44–83. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Ziman, J. 2000. Real science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesSabanci UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations