Protecting science from politicization is an ongoing concern in contemporary society. Yet some political influences on science (e.g., setting public funding amounts) are fully legitimate. We need to have a clear account of when a political influence is politicization (an illegitimate political influence) in order to properly detect and address the problem. I argue in this paper that understanding how the space of scientific inquiry is distinctive from democratic politics can be the basis for defining politicization. Similarities between inquiry and democratic politics have long been noted, but there are important differences as well. I describe four norms that are importantly distinct for inquiry when compared with democratic politics, even if they can be seen as roughly similar. Although there are parallels between democratic political norms and norms for scientific inquiry, there are crucial differences as well. Eliding these differences creates politicization of inquiry. Even as we understand scientific inquiry as pursued within society and responsible to society, we pursue it in a distinctive space, guided by distinctive norms and practices.

中文翻译：

---

区分科学探究和政治

保护科学免受政治化是当代社会持续关注的问题。然而，一些对科学的政治影响（例如，设定公共资助金额）是完全合法的。我们需要清楚地说明政治影响何时被政治化（非法政治影响），以便正确发现和解决问题。我在本文中论证，理解科学探究空间与民主政治的区别可以成为定义政治化的基础。调查和民主政治之间的相似之处早已被注意到，但也存在重要的区别。我描述了四种与民主政治相比具有重要区别的规范，即使它们可以被视为大致相似。尽管民主政治规范与科学探究规范之间存在相似之处，但也存在重要差异。消除这些差异会导致调查政治化。即使我们将科学探究理解为在社会内部进行并对社会负责，我们也在一个独特的空间中以独特的规范和实践为指导来追求它。