Democracy at its Best? The Consensus Conference in a Cross-national Perspective

  • Annika Porsborg NielsenEmail author
  • Jesper Lassen
  • Peter Sandøe


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.


Public participation consensus conference GMO cross-national evaluation participatory technology assessment TA deliberative democracy models of democracy democratic legitimacy lay and expert knowledge 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen I. -E., B. Jaeger (1999), Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards more Democratic Decision-making Science and Public Policy vol. 26: 5Google Scholar
  2. BECAGP (1997), Europe Ambivalent on Biotechnology Nature 387:845–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benhabib S. (1996a), Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy, In S. Benhabib (eds), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Benhabib, S. (ed.) (1996b), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.)Google Scholar
  5. Cohen J. (1996), Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy, In: S. Benhabib (eds), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke B., U. Kothari (2001), Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed BooksGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl R. A. (1998), On Democracy, New Haven, CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. De Nasjonale Forskningsetiske Komitéer, Kvikklaks og Teknoburger. Sluttrapport fra Lekfolkskonferansen om genmodifisert mat (NENT, Oslo, 1996)Google Scholar
  9. Einsiedel, E. F., E. Jelsøe, and T. Breck (2001), “Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia,” Public Understanding of Science 10, pp. 83–98, IOP Publishing Ltd. and The Science MuseumGoogle Scholar
  10. Elster J. (1997), The Market and the Forum. Three varieties of Political Theory, In: J. Bohman, W. Rehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer F. (2000), Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Fishkin, J. S. and P. Laslett (eds.) (2003), Debating Deliberative Democracy (Blackwell, Oxford)Google Scholar
  13. Goven, J. (2003), “Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization,” Public Understanding of Science 12, pp. 423–440, IOP Publishing Ltd. and The Science MuseumGoogle Scholar
  14. Habermas J. (1996), Three Normative Models of Democracy, In S. Benhabib (eds) Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Hennen L. (1999), Participatory Technology Assessment: A Response to Technical Modernity? Science and Public Policy 26(5): 303–312Google Scholar
  16. Ignatieff, M. (1992), “Why ‘Community’ is a Dishonest Word,” The Observer editorial page, May 3Google Scholar
  17. Joly P. B., C. Marris, G. Assouline, J. Lemarié (1999), Quand les candides évaluent les OGM: Nouveau modèle de “démocratie technique”ou mise en scène du débat public? [When the ingenuous evaluate GMOs: A new model for democratized technology or the staging of a public debate?] Annales des Mines, Paris, AprilGoogle Scholar
  18. Joss, S. and J. Durant (eds.) (1995), Public Participation in Science. The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (Science Museum UK, EC Directorate General 12)Google Scholar
  19. Joss, S. and S. Bellucci (eds.) (2002), Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives (Centre for the Study of Democracy, London)Google Scholar
  20. Lassen, J., J. Østergaard, K. K. Jensen, and P. SandØe (2003), Consensus Conferences. Description and Analytical Frame. Interim report, Ethical Bio-Technology Assessment Tools for Agriculture and Food Production, Bio-TA Tools (QLG6-CT-2002–02594). LEI, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  21. Michelman F. I. (1989), Conceptions of Democracy in American Constitutional Argument: Voting Rights Florida Law Review 41:443–490Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annika Porsborg Nielsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jesper Lassen
    • 1
  • Peter Sandøe
    • 1
  1. 1.Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk AssessmentRoyal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityFrederiksberg C, CopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations