This paper presents a unified response to the critics of my book Epistemic Democracy and Po-litical Legitimacy. The discussion focuses on three important issues. First, I discuss advantages of a procedural (rather than substantive) interpretation of Rawls' public reason as the basis for my account of epistemic democracy. Second, I elaborate on the proper role of experts (moral and technical) in democratic decision-making and decision-authorization processes, thus sketch-ing how controversial conclusions of science can enter public deliberation and represent valid reasons for ordinary laws and policies (those that do not address constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice). Third, I focus on the transformative effect that public deliberation can (and should) have on citizens' political participation, thereby addressing some challenges to the sustainability of epistemic democracy.
