{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010223048327137546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.73125, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Scientific citizenship in a democratic society

Using the example of the sociological analysis of biological citizenship and literacy, it is argued that a merely descriptive analysis of these phenomena does not capture their distinctive normative features. While such a description realistically demonstrates how citizens respond to and are shaped by biotechnology and biomedical discourse, it provides no critique of the forces moulding the citizen-consumer. Ideas of active citizenship fuel the search for forms of public engagement in the spirit of deliberative democracy. While these attempts are guided by an important vision of policy making in democratic society, they are beset with several practical difficulties. It is argued that the discussion of deliberative practices has focused too much on direct participation of citizens in various dialogical events and its impact on policy and decision making. This approach ignores other important aspects of deliberative democratic theory, emphasizing public accountability and trustworthiness of democratic institutions.