EurekAlert reports:

Publicly funded science in America 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 as the nation prepares for the end of the Bush administration, which has taken divisive stances on a number of issues, including stem cell research and global warming. Striking a balance is an essential question for Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State University....

"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."