ABSTRACT
If science was once seen as rendering neutral hard facts about the world, thus providing objective and impartial solutions to public policy issues, decades of strengthening the relation between science and politics have ironically diminished the authority of both. On the one hand, the political pressure over science to produce quick and accurate results has uncovered limitations of scientific research, the uncertain nature of scientific results, and the value-ladenness of scientific practice. As science loses its authority as a neutral and objective arbitrator, a door opens for the use of science for partisan interests: the funding and performance of scientific research with specific policy targets and the strategic or selective utilization of available data to favor certain policy lines. This ideological use of scientific research, where results are cherry-picked with political aims in mind, has led to the current politicization of science (Cozzens and Woodhouse 1995; Sarewitz 2004; Thorpe 2007). On the other hand, assigning a special role to science in policy making threatens the democratic process. If scientific expertise holds a privileged position in solving policy controversies, scientific values would likely undermine other, cultural, religious, political, and ethical values relevant for the decision-making process in liberal democracy. The conception of science as the only source of legitimate knowledge for policy making has led in turn to the current scientization of politics (Hoppe 2005; Fischer 2003; Sarewitz 2004).
