Maybe my intellectual prowess is questionable, but I found Steve Fullers writing style absolutely esoteric and disengaging. His arguments fragmented and sparsely dispersed, while his theories never seem to fully materialize. Aside from that tirade, I would like to focus this paper on areas and arguments in The Governance of Science that I did find interesting and engaging, while also trying to develop a personal stance on the issues at hand.
             Prior to reading Fuller, and our class discussions, the governance of science had never been an issue I had really considered. I took it for granted that science and its governing bodies functioned efficiently and democratically. I have since changed my view, and definitely agree that something needs to be done. One of the more striking ideas he presented, for me, was the economic problems with science funding. His republican science utopia seemingly can solve these issues, but has many faults. The most glaring is that he never fully addresses where funding will come from. Whenever a governing body is put in place, the possibility of greed and corruption exists. Fuller puts forth, in his republican ideal that through discussion, a civic ideal, and lack of personal consequences, a better science structure can be reached. He attacks the "mystification" of science, stating that it is written by experts only to be understood by experts, and the layman is at a loss. I find these two statements contradictory, for in this republican utopia, what will be the guidelines for discussion? Expertise is not necessarily equivocal to "mystification", some individuals simply have invested the time and effort to be labeled as experts in a subject. Be it academia, sports, or the drive through at Mcdonalds, our world is specialized and each occupation is versed in their respective subjects. Tonnies Gesellschaft society, or Durkheim's organic solidari
             ...