Science court: A case study in designing discourse to manage policy controversy

Abstract

Disagreement among experts is important to scientific progress, but it creates a dilemma for decision-makers who often depend on the authority those experts to render decisions. When experts disagree there seems to be no good way to incorporate expertise into decision-making. This study examines the "Science Court" proposed to facilitate the resolution of policy controversies involving expert disagreement. Science Court is examined here as a communication tool designed to (1) resolve disputes among experts so that (2) policy decision-making can proceed.The concern lies not so much in Science Court's design but with the rationale about designing communication tools to facilitate policy deliberations reflected in Science Court's design. Science Court The Science Court is an invention that makes a significant promise. It is designed to relieve decision-makers from the predicament of resolving differences in expert opinions when they are not themselves experts. Such an invention would be fortunate in an era where policy decisions are heavily dependent on expert authority but where expertise is fragmented among many competing disciplines. The Science Court, first proposed in the mid-1970s, is a procedure designed to improve the way experts and non-experts communicate in decision-making. The Science Court designers believed that the use of expertise in policy decision-making typically resulted in quarreling. This produced a"veil of disagreement" over factual matters that confused decisionmakers and invited opportunism by the powerful to influence decisions in their favor (Task Force, 1976). The court is designed to transform the escalation of expert claims and counter-claims in decision-making from quarreling that Mark Aakhus is an assistant professor of Communication at Rutgers University's School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies. His research addresses the role of communication and technology in learning, decision-making, and conflict-management. An earlier version of this article appeared in Argument and Values Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, edited by Sally Jack