Consensus Conferences: The Influence of Contexts

Abstract

The theory of deliberative democracy calls for decision making through public deliberation. Different types of public deliberation, also termed mini-publics, have been organised, such as citizens’ juries, deliberative polls or consensus conferences. In order to determine what institutional conditions are favourable to an open and inclusive debate, in this chapter a double comparative analysis is made of two consensus conferences in two different countries: the first is about cloning in the Netherlands and the second is about transgenic food in Australia. The central question is: to what extent can consensus conferences deal with intractable disagreement regarding novel technologies? The hypothesis is that while biotechnology ethics committees would perform better if they acknowledge uncertainty regarding values, consensus conferences would perform better if they allowed for more discussion on scientific uncertainty, besides discussion on values. This includes calling into question the status of expert knowledge. The Dutch debate allowed more discussion on scientific uncertainty as well as normative uncertainty. It included several philosophers and ethicists who raised questions about the normativity of expert knowledge and allowed more freedom in the selection of and discussion with experts. However, the lay panel in the Australian case also acknowledged that expert knowledge was value-laden, and in both countries a strict expert-lay distinction was maintained. Nevertheless, the Australian organisers tried to contain the debate more and created more polarisation between experts. Also, the Dutch debate was open-ended, while in the Australian one there was a strong sense of closure. All in all the Dutch debate dealt better with intractable disagreement than the Australian one, although both could be improved. The stakes were higher in the Australian consensus conference, which led to more external control. These differences can be explained, in part, by the political culture of each country, and only to a lesser extent by their specific model of democracy. The Netherlands with its corporatist tradition and more active state is more used to having input from different groups in society, but deliberations do tend to be elitist. Australia, with its antagonistic political climate and its passive state, is less used to involving social groups in an equal debate, and more used to a struggle for influence by different lobby groups. In light of these differences, it is remarkable that the deliberative exercises did show some important similarities as well, such as the lack of power differences within lay panel deliberations, educative effect of the deliberations, interest and dedication from panel members, and minimal input from the wider public. It can be concluded that in the organization of deliberative mini-publics more attention has to be given to their aims and their status within their specific political context.