Artna001's article in Week 9 (Environmental Justice) about "Chester, PA's fight for justice" is a perfect example of community and science coming together to build not only a healthier environment but creating a democratic scientific society.
In any society, trust is important in allowing any action to occur. The waste plant is a good example of that: society and science had to be on the same footing in the first place in order to put those plants up. It showed that there was trust between the two parties, believing that no harm would come to any member of either society. However, lack of communication on the scientist's side as well as their ignorant ear led to the outrage of the community it was affecting as well as society as a whole.
Social class played a major part. Who is to say that the poor people do not deserve healthcare? The poor people often don't have the opportunity to fully understand what is happening, therefore not being able to respond to any of the input. It's safe to say that scientists knew that burning waste would cause some sort of negative effect on the environment (and, by extension, negatively affecting the members of that society). The uproar that resulted from this really dealt a major negative blow to the waste company's image, which, in time, will negatively affect the economy in general. The government of that area may have seen the economic benefits, but in order to make it justifiable, it would have to reach out to everyone in the society and try to come to an equal solution for everyone. What kinds of issues do you guys think could have come up if the waste company in Chester, PA was a scientific democracy?