 While philosophers of science have increasingly turned to science governance (Douglas 2009; Eigi 2017; Tuana 2010), it remains contentious how far pluralist demands for diversity, participation, and representation should reach. Science governance comes with heterogenous perspectives on public engagement and inclusion (Macnaghten 2020). For example, “grand challenges” models in science governance emphasize the crucial role of science in addressing pressing societal problems from climate change to food security to public health (Efstathiou 2016). While grand challenges models include diverse publics in the agenda setting of science, they tend to leave the epistemic core of scientific knowledge production to scientists as long as they adhere with socially negotiated ethical constraints. Debates about well-ordered science can often be interpreted along grand challenges science that articulates pluralist perspectives on public deliberation for early stages of agenda setting and final stages of application but not for the research process itself. In this sense, Longino (2002b: 574) argues that “Kitcher wants to democratize science policy, not science”.