Researcher finds direct democracy in science too much of a good thing

Feb 15, 2008

Publicly funded science in America traditionally is accountable to the people and their government representatives. However, this arrangement raises questions regarding the effect such oversight has on science.

It is a problem of particular relevance in this election year, as the nation prepares for the end of the Bush administration, which has taken strong and divisive stances on a number of scientific issues, including stem cell research and global warming.

Striking such a balance is an essential question for Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University. Sarewitz will present his recent work on direct democracy and public funding of science on Feb. 15 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting.

Three years ago, Sarewitz presented a paper on the pitfalls of excessive independence in publicly funded research as exemplified by the case of California’s Proposition 71. The $3 billion measure, passed in 2004, was designed to circumvent the Bush administration’s restrictions on stem cell research funding. Because it was designed to sidestep government interference, it provided for little to no oversight of the research in question, leading to fears of potential abuse on the one hand and loss of credibility on the other, Sarewitz says.

Sarewitz’s upcoming AAAS presentation focuses on the other side of the issue: What is the effect of too much voter involvement in funding science"

“While increased democratization in the sciences is certainly desirable, direct democracy — putting it to the public to decide which programs are worthy of funding and which are not — is an absurd way to fund science,” Sarewitz says.

“There is a reason that we have representative democracy in this country,” he adds. “It is because it is doubtful that people — with the exception of specifically interested parties — have the time to study and investigate in any detail the topics being voted on.”

Another problem with direct democracy, explains Sarewitz, is that it does not give people an opportunity to choose among a variety of science programs.

“Instead, a ‘political advocacy circus’ is created around an issue — the classic example being Proposition 71, the California stem cell research bond issue of three years ago.”

“Democratization really means a more open process and institutions that are more transparent,” Sarewitz says. “It means expanding the franchise to include public participation in complex decision-making processes.”

Source: Arizona State University

Explore further: Super Bowl athletes are scientists at work

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists to assess societal implications of nanotechnology

Oct 12, 2005

How will rapid technological change influence democracy, affect our privacy, and even change human identity itself? The National Science Foundation has awarded $6.2 million to explore such questions at the new Center for ...

Recommended for you

Super Bowl athletes are scientists at work

Jan 30, 2015

Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman gets called a lot of things. He calls himself the greatest cornerback in the NFL (and Seattle fans tend to agree). Sportswriters and some other players call him ...

Sundance doc examines real-life Close Encounter

Jan 29, 2015

Earth authorities are completely unprepared for the arrival of alien visitors and worried humans should ready themselves by watching a groundbreaking documentary, the film's director boasts.

Toward a scientific process freed from systemic bias

Jan 26, 2015

Research on how science works - the science of science - can benefit from studying the digital traces generated during the research process, such as peer-reviewed publications. This type of research is crucial for the future ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Feb 15, 2008
this article is poorly written
not rated yet Feb 18, 2008
"There is a reason that we have representative democracy in this country,%u201D he adds. %u201CIt is because it is doubtful that people %u2014 with the exception of specifically interested parties %u2014 have the time to study and investigate in any detail the topics being voted on.%u201D : I doubt that the representatives do that; for them more important is money, glory, political influence. And Sarewitz did not regard the historical processes that are important in decision making. A notorious error of bourgeois science.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.