Recently, some 2,500 astronomers and scientists from round the world met in Prague to develop an internationally accepted definition of what exactly constitutes a planet. The definition will be decided by ballot and will determine how many planets there are in our solar system.

No exact scientific definition has as yet been ascribed to the planets. Some scientists are keen to base the definition on the size of each celestial being. Others disagree because planets have different shapes and more sophisticated methods than are currently available are needed to measure them. Perhaps it is better that the controversy focuses on the uncertainties of science rather than the wording of the definition itself. The definition will be taken to a vote.

Science and democracy are both familiar (dubbed Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science in China's May 4 Movement). Most people at that time felt that science and democracy would be beneficial to China. However, democracy is not common to science. Is it a good idea? The answer is 'yes'. Democracy is the direction science needs to take.

It is unusual for democracy to play a role in science, but tension in the scientific community has necessitated this approach. Mad cow disease became an example of the fact that when 'scientific evidence' is used as a basis for decision-making, the results are not always reliable. The UK Government and its science advisers reassured the public several times that Mad Cow disease could not be transmitted to humans. It was not until 1996, that the British Government admitted that humans could contract Mad Cow disease if they ate infected beef. Mad Cow disease caused an unprecedented credibility crisis between the public, the Government and scientists.

Following this, the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords made a report on science and society, in which it reviewed the public's attitude to science and values. The report raised five issues; the need to create a culture of dialogue between the scientific community and the public; the existence of a creditability crisis in relation to information the scientific community were providing to the government; the expectation that any institute giving advice, or decision-making department related to science, should be transparent and open; and the need for the scientific community and media to cooperate. This heralded the coming of the democratic era for science.

Uncertainty increases as modern science and technology develops. In addition to the question about the definition of 'planet', there are debates over GM (genetically modified) food and cloning. Science is not a purely academic problem; it brings with it many ethical issues about human welfare and health. Science is not neutral in value and has a major duty to government, business and the general public, who are often manipulated by the pseudo-sciences. Democracy is undoubtedly the way forward for science. Only by successfully integrating will the public be satisfied.

By People's Daily Online