Starting from the Lippmann-Dewey debate, this paper relates its themes to nowadays’ society, understood as featured by complexity, difficult access to scientific information, and poor political involvement. Such context prompts the authors to adopt Barber’s futurology, which envisages three scenarios for the relation between technology and participatory democracy—assuming an increased politicization of science. Two decades later, the European Union proves to be on feebler grounds: when it comes to the governance of scientific innovation, it has not chosen full liberalization, nor full centralization. In particular, it failed to innovate individual habits, which was the much-needed change foreshadowed by Dewey. The following crisis of political inclusion is averted by education, understood not qua mere transmission of curricular contents but qua tool of self-emancipation.