Brown traces the complicated co-evolution of science and democracy, and the continued conflict between expert advice and popular rule from Machiavelli through Hobbes and Rousseau, the Progressive Movement, Bruno Latour, and to the modern structure of over 35,000 federal science advisors. Brown thesis is opposed to those who want scientists to retreat politically to the role of "an honest broker." Instead, he shows that in our complex, institutionalized system of government, science acts as an "anti-politics", where an appeal to science can trump political concerns. In this environment, where scientific knowledge is so privileged, political actors will perforce learn ways to counter science, by introducing fake "controversies" or attacking the personal credibility of scientists.

I believe that we today face major collective challenges, about climate change, peak oil, new diseases, and a host of other issues, and that we cannot simply randomly walk into the future and survive. Expertise will be a vital part of of our future, and if experts are to be credible, they must move out of the marbled halls of power, and appeal directly to the people.

Despite it's heavy topic, Science in Democracy is written in a clear and minimally jargon filled style. This is a book that everybody should read.