Goggin, Malcolm L. "The Life Sciences and the Public: Is Science Too Important To Be Left to the Scientists?" Politics and the Life Sciences 3, 1 (August, 1984):28-39.
[Thirteen commentaries and author response, pp. 40-75]
From the Introduction. The scientific community is divided over the question of who should govern science. Most scientists are comfortable with a governing scheme which leaves science in the hands of scientists. Dissident scientists, with support from active members of the lay public, believe that science is too important to be left to scientists (Policy Research Incorporated, 1977; Miller, Prewitt, and Pearson, 1980).
Those who support expert self-rule prefer the current system of peer review, where scientists decide on the merit of scientific research and development projects.... These optimists express confidence in scientists’ abilities to harness potentially harmful discoveries for humanity’s benefit. Moreover, some, like Alvin M. Weinberg of the U.S. Energy Institute, express concern that one of the greatest threats to science is its public control. According to Weinberg (1978), "science by the people" could undermine the integrity of the science republic and "cause the whole scientific edifice to crumble"….
On the other hand, some scientists are skeptical of a science that lives by elitist criteria. They question the excessive promises of science, fear the worst in the way of harms, and distrust the experts willingness and capacity to police themselves. This group gives priority to protecting collective interests, even if it means restricting the conduct of individual researchers and placing limits on scientific inquiry…. One of the greatest fears of skeptics is that a doctrine of freedom from outside interference will be transformed into a doctrine of authority and control.
These critics of a self-governed science…argue that citizens’ democratic rights mandate access of the lay public to any authoritative decision, especially a decision about controversial or hazardous research in the life sciences which is financed with taxpayers dollars and which had broad social impact. They have concluded that science is just too important to be left to the scientists.
Although the vast majority of the American public has confidence in science (Miller, Prewitt, and Pearson, 1980:73), there is a growing uneasiness with a system that does not subject science to democratic controls. This questioning of the credibility and legitimacy of scientific authority has given rise to a growing tension between democracy and expertise in the life sciences (Nelkin, 1978; Nelkin and Pollak, 1978).
My article examines the arguments for expert self-rule in science and the case for more public participation in science policymaking. It analyzes some of the reasons why demands for more public accountability in the life sciences are increasing and outlines some of the institutional mechanisms that the federal government has considered as instruments for relieving the growing tension between science and its public.