 While the moderate pluralism of well-ordered science has been widely discussed in philosophy (Cartwright 2006; Fernández Pinto 2015; Kusch 2020b; Van Bouwel 2009), its highly idealized model of public deliberation has only limited appeal to science governance scholars who have become more closely aligned with science and technology studies (STS) and research on public deliberation under non-ideal conditions (Hagendijk &amp; Irwin 2006; Kearnes 2009). One major contribution from STS is the notion of “sociotechnical imaginaries” that approaches scientific agendas not through ideal deliberation but heterogeneous national cultures of imagining and negotiating futures (Jasanoff &amp; Kim 2009). In their comparative study of nuclear energy in the US and South Korea, for example, Jasanoff and Kim argue that the American imaginary reflects a discourse of containment between the potentials of nuclear superpower and its existential risks, while the South Korean imaginary incorporated nuclear energy into a narrative of scientific and technological progress in the ascent of an “underdeveloped nation” into a modern society. Thinking about the international plurality of scientific agendas through sociotechnical imaginaries therefore challenges scientific pluralists to address democratization not merely as an ideal in which all preferences and stakeholders are equally represented but as a non-ideal process that unfolds in interaction with heterogeneous discourses, identities, institutions, and technologies.