But things are not, unfortunately, always that simple. In the end, democratic politics must be fought out in debates that may rely upon science. But I don't think science should presuppose answers to those debates, which can and should be objective in Habermas's sense of the term. I certainly do not have an adequate theory about the ideal relations between democratic politics in science. Nor does anybody else, in my opinion.
Several possibilities are current.
One is that science should follow Max Weber's notion of science as a vocation. This ideal, even in the Positivists, is meant to preserve democratic politics from science or at least scientism. But this view is compatible with strident democratic reformism, as was the case among some of the Progressivists before the rise of Positivism. But this view requires that science try to be objective. I think Longino and Harding show us how science can be even more objective by becoming more inclusive.