Page 88 - Read Online

Fouad et al. Metab Target Organ Damage 2024;4:20 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/mtod.2024.26 Page 3 of 7

disaggregate influence from participation pushing toward the erosion of traditional forms of a closed-circuit
authority and to contain future inappropriate utilization of power by scientific societies, large academic
organizations, or even individual opinion makers. Implementing such a tremendous cultural change in
medicine requires re-imagining of the traditional dynamics of power between a restricted number of
professionals controlling the scientific societies and the general community of global stakeholders - in short,
it requests a democratization of science.

WHAT IS DEMOCRATIZATION OF SCIENCE?
The term “democratization of science” describes the process of more evenly allocating epistemic authority
between scientists, members of dominant cultures, and the academic community at large, or members of
[14]
less powerful societies . This means that it includes initiatives aimed at democratizing the decision-making
process by acknowledging the presence of diverse types of “wisdom of crowd” and so reducing the barriers
[15]
between the various stakeholders .
Accordingly, the democratization of science refers to (A) the increase in the general academics’ influence
over various aspects of decision making; and (B) the equalization of the opportunity for influence among
members of the various scientific societies; coupled with (C) an increased ability of members of the general
academic to form an accurate conception of what would better serve their regions without the imposition of
views via a “top-down” approach.

The goal of the democratization of science is to reduce the abuse of power by tiny noisy groups or social
boards and to expand the purview of democratic governance to include choices about science. A domain of
actual consensus, in the event of future dispute or debate, is democratically controlled when all pertinent
stakeholders, including members of marginalized societies, have an equal opportunity to influence it based
on fairness and transparency.

WHY DEMOCRATIZE SCIENCE?
The consensus process based on the “top-down” approach could have a deep and often unavoidable impact
[3]
on the whole academic community, rather than just specific groups or individuals . This controlling entity
should adopt a broader, more global perspective. Additionally, their views might be confounded by various
types of conflicts of interest, given that their decisions will affect a wide gamut of interests and activities.

It is a persuasive argument that all interested parties, not just a small number of professionals, ought to be
permitted to take part in discussions on scientific subjects, particularly when those topics directly affect
them. They cannot maintain and validate their leadership unless the global academic community has the
ability to impact research. Therefore, everyone impacted by a choice should have a say in its governance,
particularly when the outcome affects regional interests or is related to shared health concerns.

By better utilizing information scattered across different locations, the democratization of research also
enhances the adoption of process outcomes [6,16-20] . First, it accomplishes this by promoting dialogues that aid
in recognizing and articulating global needs and viewpoints. It also permits democratic deliberation, which
may result in adjustments and alignments in these value judgments. Secondly, in comparison with
top-down techniques, it makes greater use of regional perspectives that depend on local circumstances and
epistemic variety around the globe.