Democratic Sovereignty and the Regulation of Research
Author(s)
Hausman, Daniel
Abstract
The ultimate authority in a representative democracy such as the United States is supposed to lie with the citizenry as a whole. It is, however, no part of either the theory or practice of representative government that laws or regulations should match the views of a majority of citizens. Public opinion polls have no formal standing in legislative, executive, or judicial actions; and laws are regularly passed that are not supported by a majority of citizens.nRather than maintaining that legislation and policy should match public opinion, the political philosophy underlying American representative democracy holds that laws and policies should be fully legitimate: when laws and policies are passed over the opposition of specific groups – as they almost always are – the grounds for the opposition should be taken seriously and the laws and policies should be justified by relevant reasons. One among many reasons why we do not and should not have government by public opinion polling is that it would not satisfy the demands of deliberative legitimacy. Like many others, I see a current crisis in legitimacy, with many Americans suspecting that legislators are bought and sold by campaign contributors or blocks of voters with disproportionate influence in party primaries. In such an environment, it is difficult to sustain the deliberative legitimacy of specific laws and guidelines. The National Academies of Science may possess a greater legitimacy.
IssueNo
Pages
1-7
Article
Article Not Available
Source
National Academies of Science Workshop on Guidelines Governing Stem Cell Research
