The rule of opinion and the fate of ideas: “What are the prospects of science in a society that is steeped in a democratic

ethos, professes to admire science, and expects great things of scientists,

but which, notwithstanding a massive educational system, comprehends

science rather poorly?”

The news, as I see it, is bad. To put it plainly, despite

three centuries of co-evolution, despite frequent episodes of mutual

encouragement and support, the culture of modern democracy and that of

modern science are in many ways incongruent. Orthodox history of science

regards certain developments as the most sweeping and fateful of triumphs:

the Copernican Revolution that culminated in Newton’s synthesis, the

Darwinian revelation that humanity is an adventitious consequence of the

convolution of biology and history, the relentless explication of biological

process, including those of the human organism, in terms of chemistry and

physics.

The depressing, though often unspoken, truth is that these are regarded as

sovereign insights only within the relatively tiny community of the scientifically

well-educated. In the larger society, even Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and

Newton are more accepted than understood. It is hardly necessary to remark

that Darwin, as a historical figure and as the symbol of an idea, is widely

reviled. The ongoing revolution in genetics and molecular biology, while

doubtless deserving of intelligent ethical scrutiny, has often been received with

what amounts to superstitious terror.