Abstract

The Editorial introduces the complex interactions between science, technology and social movements within the «risk society», where scientific and technological advancements are both sources of risk and objects of public distrust, challenging traditional notions of (sustainable) development and expert neutrality. This Editorial, as well as most of the articles in this Special Issue, contends that scientific authority is often entangled with political and economic power, and this alignment may marginalize non-expert knowledge or alternative epistemologies. We argue that the current scientization of politics – treating political and ethical debates as purely technical problems – can sideline public discourse and reduce democratic accountability. We propose the concept of «contentious science» as a way of overcoming readings that interpret the critique of science and expert knowledge based on the exclusive issue of populism. On the contrary, this concept encompasses the involvement of social movements in the process of scientization, so that they increasingly tend to use science and produce (counter)knowledge to substantiate their claims; and the fact that, at the same time, social movements have to face – and sometimes denounce – the aporias that arise both from the scientization of politics itself and from the instrumentalisation of science by economic and political interests. By mobilising interpretive keys from ecofeminist and decolonial debates, and drawing on concepts such as the Pluriverse and (the need for) an ecology of knowledge, we address the democratic challenges posed by the intersection of scientific governance and political power, emphasizing the role of epistemology in political relations of domination and, then, the need for an epistemological pluralism capable of respecting diverse perspectives and forms of expertise.