The Democratic Control of the Scientific Control of Politics

Conference paper
Part of the The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings book series (EPSP, volume 2)


I discuss two popular but apparently contradictory theses:
  1. T1.

    The democratic control of science – the aims and activities of science should be subject to public scrutiny via democratic processes of representation and participation.

  2. T2.

    The scientific control of policy, i.e. technocracy – political processes should be problem-solving pursuits determined by the methods and results of science and technology.


Many arguments can be given for (T1), both epistemic and moral/political; I will focus on an argument based on the role of non-epistemic values in policy-relevant science. I will argue that we must accept (T2) as a result of an appraisal of the nature of contemporary political problems. Technocratic systems, however, are subject to serious moral and political objections; these difficulties are sufficiently mitigated by (T1). I will set out a framework in which (T1) and (T2) can be consistently and compellingly combined.


  1. Anderson, E. (2007). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3(1), 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohman, J. (1999). Democracy as inquiry, inquiry as democratic: Pragmatism, social science, and the cognitive division of labor. American Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 590–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise, institutions, and representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dewey, J. (1903). Studies in logical theory. Chicago. University. The decennial publications (2d ser., Vol. XI). Chicago: The University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  5. Dewey, J. (1916 [2007]). Essays in experimental logic. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1927[1986/2008]). The public and its problems (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 2). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1933 [1986/2008]). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 8). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1938 [1986/2008]). Logic: The theory of inquiry. (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 12). Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1939 [1986/2008]). Freedom and culture. (The later works of John Dewey, Vol. 13). Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67(4), 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas, H. (2005). Inserting the public into science. In S. Maasen & P. Weingart (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making (Sociology of the sciences yearbook, Vol. 24, pp. 153–169). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  13. Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London and Atlantic Highlands: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  14. Feyerabend, P. K. (1978). Science in a free society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  15. Gore, A. (2009). Our choice: A plan to solve the climate crisis. Emmaus: Rodale.Google Scholar
  16. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jasanoff, S. (2009). Essential parallel between science and democracy. Seed Magazine. Accessed 16 June 2012.
  18. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kourany, J. A. (2010). Philosophy of science after feminism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mitcham, C. (1997). Engineering design research and social responsibility. In K. Shrader-Frechette & L. Westra (Eds.), Technology and values (pp. 261–278). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. Stern, P. C., & Fineberg, H. V. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic society. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. Turner, S. (2001). What is the problem with experts? Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and TechnologyThe University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA

Personalised recommendations