English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In Science, Truth and Democracy (2001) and Science in a Democratic Society (2011a), Philip Kitcher proposed a\udmodel of “well-ordered science”. Through the development of a philosophical ideal, Kitcher’s well-ordered\udscience aims to consolidate the requirements of both democracy and scientific practice. This paper is an attempt\udto follow this ideal model in a more empirical perspective: how far can we use such a theory in the\udrealms of scientific policy and institutional frameworks? The focus is put on a case study of a public debate\udon nanotechnology which took place in France.\ud\udEn Science, Truth and Democracy (2001) y Science in a Democratic Society (2011a), Philip Kitcher propuso un\udmodelo de “ciencia bien ordenada”. A través del desarrollo de un ideal filosófico, la ciencia bien ordenada\udde Kitcher tiene como objetivo consolidar los requisitos de la democracia, así como de la práctica científica.\udEl presente artículo trata de seguir este modelo ideal desde una perspectiva más empírica: ¿Hasta qué punto\udpodemos aplicar dicha teoría en el plano de la política científica y de los marcos institucionales? El enfoque\udse centra en un estudio de caso de un debate público sobre nanotecnología que tuvo lugar en Francia

The Governance of "Well-Ordered Science", from Ideal Conversation to Public Debate