Breaking down the question
The command word comment asks the candidate to engage critically with a proposition — here, that science and technology should be democratised so that development becomes inclusive. Commenting means neither uncritical endorsement nor blanket rejection; it means examining the claim, assessing the arguments for it, and weighing the difficulties.
The proposition contains three linked ideas that must each be unpacked. Democratisation of science and technology means opening up decisions about what is researched, developed and deployed — and access to its benefits — beyond a narrow circle of experts, corporations and elites, to citizens and affected communities. Inclusive development means growth whose gains reach the marginalised rather than concentrating at the top. The sentence asserts a causal link: the first is a means to the second.
A strong answer therefore explains why sociologists make this argument, illustrates it, and then comments critically — noting both the promise of democratised science and the tensions and limits involved.
For the wider theme, see the note on science, technology and social change.
How to approach it
Open by defining the democratisation of science and technology and inclusive development, and stating the sociological case: knowledge is a form of power, and when its production and distribution are monopolised, development becomes exclusionary.
Develop the argument through its main strands — challenging expert monopoly, closing the digital divide, promoting appropriate and participatory technology, and subjecting risk-laden technologies to democratic accountability. Ground each in examples and in named theorists such as Beck, Sen and Jasanoff.
Then comment critically: acknowledge the constraints — the genuine need for expertise, the danger of populist rejection of science, structural inequalities of power, and the role of the market and the state. Conclude with a balanced verdict on the conditions under which democratised science and technology can genuinely serve inclusive development.
Model answer
Modern development has been driven by science and technology, yet their benefits and their governance have remained highly unequal. This is why many sociologists argue for the democratisation of science and technology — broadening participation in decisions about research and innovation, and widening access to their fruits — as a precondition of inclusive development, in which growth reaches the poor and the marginalised rather than a privileged few.
The starting point of the argument is that knowledge is power. Where the production of scientific knowledge and the ownership of technology are concentrated in the hands of experts, corporations and states, the direction of development reflects their interests. Sheila Jasanoff and scholars in science and technology studies show that scientific and technical choices are never purely neutral; they embed social values and distribute advantages and harms unevenly. Democratisation seeks to make these choices publicly accountable.
A first strand of the argument challenges the monopoly of experts. Technocratic decision-making excludes those most affected by technology, from displaced communities to consumers exposed to new risks. Democratisation calls for lay participation, public deliberation and the recognition of indigenous and local knowledge alongside formal science. Movements for participatory technology assessment and community consultation over large projects express this demand.
A second strand concerns access. The digital divide — the gulf between those with and without access to information and communication technology — reproduces and deepens existing inequalities of class, gender, region and caste. If digital infrastructure, scientific literacy and the tools of innovation remain the preserve of urban elites, technology widens rather than narrows social gaps. Inclusive development requires that access itself be democratised, through public provision of connectivity, education and affordable technology.
A third strand promotes appropriate and participatory technology. Drawing on E. F. Schumacher's vision of technology suited to local resources and needs, sociologists argue that development should not simply import capital-intensive systems that displace labour and marginalise the poor, but foster technologies that communities can own, adapt and control. Amartya Sen's capability approach reinforces this: development is the expansion of people's real freedoms, and technology serves development only when it enlarges the capabilities of the disadvantaged.
A fourth strand, developed by Ulrich Beck in his account of the risk society, insists that modern technologies generate hazards — environmental, nuclear, biotechnological — whose distribution and management are properly political questions. When such risks are decided behind closed doors, those who bear them have no voice. Democratic scrutiny of risk-laden technology is thus part of a just and inclusive modernity.
These arguments are compelling, but the proposition invites critical comment. Expertise cannot simply be dissolved; complex scientific decisions require specialised knowledge, and a naive populism that treats all opinions as equal can obstruct sound public policy, as debates over vaccination and climate science show. Democratisation must therefore mean informed participation, not the rejection of science. Moreover, the structural inequalities that make science exclusionary — of capital, of global power between North and South, of caste and gender — are not easily overcome by participatory procedures alone; without redistribution, participation can be tokenistic. Finally, the market and the state shape technological trajectories more powerfully than public deliberation, so democratisation depends on political will and institutional reform.
On balance, the sociological case is persuasive as an ideal and a direction: development that is genuinely inclusive requires that ordinary people, especially the marginalised, gain both a voice in how science and technology are governed and access to their benefits. But the argument is realistic only when it couples participation with expertise, and pairs the democratisation of knowledge with a broader democratisation of power and resources. Understood in that qualified sense, the democratisation of science and technology is indeed a condition of inclusive development.
Examiner's perspective
Because the command word is comment, examiners expect engagement rather than reproduction. The weakest answers simply celebrate technology's benefits or list schemes; the strongest treat the sentence as a claim to be examined, explaining the reasoning behind it and then testing it.
Conceptual precision distinguishes the better scripts. Handling the digital divide, appropriate technology, the risk society and the capability approach with accuracy, and attaching them to named theorists such as Beck, Sen and Jasanoff, demonstrates command of the sociology of science and technology rather than generic development commentary.
The finest answers hold a genuine balance. Recognising both the emancipatory promise of democratised science and its limits — the indispensability of expertise, the dangers of anti-science populism, the weight of structural power — and closing with a qualified, reasoned verdict, delivers exactly the critical maturity the twenty-mark format is designed to reward.