Abstract

In this paper, we examine the effects that decision-making procedures have on the quality of decisions made by small groups of scientists and/or policymakers that carry a societal responsibility, and what the consequences are for the position of said groups within the wider context of society, i.e., how the decision-making procedure affects the perceived authority and trustworthiness of the group. We examine three procedures in detail: the classic consensus ideal, the aggregation procedure and deliberative acceptance. We conclude that the last alternative, although far from perfect, is the most promising for the groups in mind, insofar as this approach focuses on the quality of the discussion and therefore renders the greatest chance for making right decisions, and is the most transparent, thereby improving both the group’s level of reliability as well as its authority status. Moreover, we show how, by launching a new concept that we call meta-consensus, a purely procedural approach for consensus formation further improves the quality of group decision making, as opposed to its more substantive alternatives.