Our ability to take action on some of the greatest problems of our time, such as pandemics, climate change, biotechnology, or nuclear weapons, necessitates relying on the knowledge provided by scientists and other experts.

However, critical questions arise: To what extent can available scientific knowledge influence the processes by which political decisions regarding its use are made? Is it therefore appropriate to expect citizens to engage with the specialized details of science?

How do issues regarding the use of science in a democratic society influence broader decisions about the funding, design, and conduct of scientific research? How is science communicated? Who is accountable and to whom?

Ultimately, how is the balance between democratic and scientific authority shaped in decisions that depend on both?

These are some of the critical and highly relevant questions that Zeynep Pamuk's book seeks to answer. The answers, in turn, help us identify the structural tensions in the relationship between science and politics, distinguishing them from potential occasional problems stemming from the moral inadequacies or incompetence of individuals holding prominent political or scientific positions at any given time.

With a solid philosophical approach and engaging examples, the book ultimately drives the discussion beyond the dichotomy between the authority of science and the power of political authority, proposing specific institutional solutions, such as the creation of a "court of science," that would be capable of rationally regulating the function and use of science within the framework of democratic society.