David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (1):13-35 (2007)
Over recent decades, public participation in technology assessment has spread internationally as an attempt to overcome or prevent societal conflicts over controversial technologies. One outcome of this new surge in public consultation initiatives has been the increased use of participatory consensus conferences in a number of countries. Existing evaluations of consensus conferences tend to focus on the modes of organization, as well as the outcomes, both procedural and substantial, of the conferences they examine. Such evaluations seem to rest on the assumption that this type of procedure has universally agreed goals and meanings, and that therefore consensus conferences can readily be interpreted and applied across national boundaries. This article challenges this approach to consensus conferences. The core of the article is a study of national differences in ideas about what constitutes legitimate goals for participatory arrangements. The study looks at three consensus conferences on GMOs, which took place in France, Norway, and Denmark. Drawing on this study, the article discusses the ways in which interpretations of the concept of participation; the value attributed to lay knowledge vs. technical expertise; as well as ideas about the role of the layperson, are all questions that prompt entirely different answers from country to country. Further, the article analyses these national differences within a theoretical framework of notions of democratic legitimacy.
|Keywords||Public participation consensus conference GMO cross-national evaluation participatory technology assessment TA deliberative democracy models of democracy democratic legitimacy lay and expert knowledge|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Peta Cook (2011). What Constitutes Adequate Public Consultation? Xenotransplantation Proceeds in Australia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):67-70.
Jonathan D. Moreno (1995). Deciding Together: Bioethics and Moral Consensus. Oxford University Press.
Enzo Rossi (2010). Modus Vivendi, Consensus, and (Realist) Liberal Legitimacy. Public Reason 2 (2):21-39.
Tim Heysse (2006). Consensus and Power in Deliberative Democracy. Inquiry 49 (3):265 – 289.
Bruce Jennings (1991). Possibilities of Consensus: Toward Democratic Moral Discourse. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):447-463.
Aviezer Tucker (2003). The Epistemic Significance of Consensus. Inquiry 46 (4):501 – 521.
Rosemarie Tong (1991). The Epistemology and Ethics of Consensus: Uses and Misuses of 'Ethical' Expertise. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):409-426.
Yukio Wakamatsu (1999). A Citizens' Conference on Gene Therapy in Japan: A Feasibility Study of the Consensus Conference Method in Japan. [REVIEW] AI and Society 13 (1-2):22-43.
Barbara Skorupinski, Heike Baranzke, Hans Werner Ingensiep & Marc Meinhardt (2007). Consensus Conferences – a Case Study: Publiforum in Switzerland with Special Respect to the Role of Lay Persons and Ethics. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (1):37-52.
Matthias Kaiser & Ellen-Marie Forsberg (2002). Consensus Conference on Environmental Values in Radiation Protection: A Report on Building Consensus Among Experts. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (4):593-602.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #115,807 of 1,102,812 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #61,871 of 1,102,812 )
How can I increase my downloads?