In 1927, John Dewey wrote, “Optimism about democracy is to-day under a cloud.” One hundred years later, no truer words could be spoken. As a global pandemic lingers in our rearview mirror and the worst effects of climate change loom over the horizon, now is a time rife with uncertainty and disagreement. This dissertation aims to illustrate how we can make progress towards confronting these major societal issues in the face of uncertainty and disagreement. Following Dewey, here I envision how diverse groups of scientists, policymakers, and members of the public might better communicate and collaborate with one another, such that democracy can be made to work. Central to this effort is a characteristic shared by both science and democracy when at their best: responsiveness. Informed by empirical studies on science communication and my decade-long career as a science journalist, I develop what I call the responsiveness model of trust in science. Pushing back against standard models that ground public trust in scientific consensus and value-freedom, my model aims to foster warranted trust in the many cases when policy-relevant science is uncertain, value-laden, and, thus, in disagreement. It does so by requiring scientists to consider and respond to - but not necessarily agree with - alternative hypotheses and the public’s values to warrant their trust. In addition, the model necessitates an independent party that acts as an intermediary between scientists and the public by investigating whether scientists are being adequately responsive and holding them accountable if they are not. This is a role, I argue, that trained journalists would be particularly well-positioned to perform.