Explicating Ways of Consensus-Making in Science and Society: Distinguishing the Academic, the Interface and the Meta-Consensus
In this chapter, we shed new light on the epistemic struggle between establishing consensus and acknowledging plurality, by explicating different ways of consensus-making in science and society and examining the impact hereof on their field of intersection, i.e. consensus conferences (in particular those organized by the National Institute of Health). We draw a distinction between, what we call, academic and interface consensus, to capture the wide appeal to consensus in existing literature. We investigate such accounts – i.e. from Miriam Solomon, John Beatty and Alfred Moore, and Boaz Miller – as to put forth a new understanding of consensus-making, focusing on the meta-consensus. We further defend how (NIH) consensus conferences enable epistemic work, through demands of epistemic adequacy and contestability, contrary to the claim that consensus conferences miss a window for epistemic opportunity (Solomon M, The social epistemology of NIH consensus conferences. In: Kincaid H, McKitrick J (ed) Establishing medical reality: methodological and metaphysical issues in philosophy of medicine. Springer, Dordrecht, 2007). Paying attention to the dynamics surrounding consensus, moreover, allows us to illustrate how the public understanding of science and the public use of the ideal of consensus could be well modified.
KeywordsPylorus Infection Consensus Conference Adefovir Dipivoxil Scientific Consensus Rational Deliberation
Research for this chapter was supported by subventions from the Research Foundation (FWO) – Flanders through research project G.0122.10. The authors would in particular like to thank Alfred Moore, Boaz Miller, Carlo Martini, Jan de Winter, Anna Leuschner, the anonymous reviewers and the audiences at TiLPS EPS seminar, EPSA13, VISU2013, SPSP2013, LOBSTER and the Bayreuth2012 workshop for their comments on previous versions of this chapter.
- Baartmans, T., and L. Kosolosky. in print. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie. Groepsbeslissingen: kwaliteit, autoriteit en vertrouwen. Google Scholar
- Churchill, W. 1947. House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947.Google Scholar
- De Melo-Martin, I., and K. Intemann. 2013. Scientific dissent and public policy: Is targeting dissent a reasonable way to protect sound policy decisions? European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 14(3): 231–235.Google Scholar
- FDA. 2001. Ribavirin and chronic hepatitis C infection. Consumer 35(5): 3.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, G.N., and M. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Grundmann, R. 2012. The legacy of climategate: Revitalizing or undermining climate science and policy? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(3): 281–288.Google Scholar
- Institute of Medicine (IOM). 1990. Consensus development at NIH: Improving the program. Report of a study by a committee of the Institute of Medicine Council on Health Care Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Kanouse, D.E., R.H. Brook, and J.D. Winkler. 1989. Changing medical practice through technology assessment: An evaluation of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
- Kosolosky, L. 2012. The intended window of epistemic opportunity: A comment on Miriam Solomon. In Logic, philosophy and history of science in Belgium II, ed. Bart Van Kerkhove, Thierry Libert, Geert Vanpaemel, and Pierre Marage. Brussel: Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van België.Google Scholar
- Leshner, A., et al. 1999. Report of the working group of the advisory committee to the director to review the office of medical applications of research. At http://www.nih.gov/about/director/060399a.htm. Accessed 8 June 2008.
- Longino, H. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Martini, C. 2011. Consensus and disagreement in small committees. Phd-thesis. ISBN: 978-94-6191-092-9.Google Scholar
- National Institutes of Health. 1994. Helicobacter pylori in peptic ulcer disease. NIH consensus statement. February 7–9, 12(1):1–23. Available online: http://consensus.nih.gov/1994/1994HelicobacterPyloriUlcer094PDF.pdf. Accessed on July 7, 2014.
- National Institutes of Health. 2000. Osteoporosis prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. NIH consensus statement 17 (1):1–45. Available online: http://consensus.nih.gov/2000/2000Osteoporosis111PDF.pdf. Accessed on July 7, 2014.
- National Institutes of Health. 2002. Management of hepatitis C. NIH consensus statement 19(3): 1–46. Available online: http://consensus.nih.gov/2002/2002HepatitisC2002116PDF.pdf.
- National Institutes of Health. 2008. NIH consensus development conference statement on management of hepatitis B 25(2):1–29. Available online: http://consensus.nih.gov/2008/hepbstatement.pdf. Accessed on July 7, 2014.
- National Institutes of Health. Website on the Consensus Development Conference Program. Available online: http://www.consensus.nih.gov. Accessed on July 7, 2014.
- National Institutes of Health: Official Site, Web Site: Available online: http://www.nih.gov/. Accessed on July 7, 2014.
- Rolin, K. 2009. Scientific knowledge: A stakeholder theory. In The social sciences and democracy, ed. J. Van Bouwel, 95–119. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Solomon, M. 2007. The social epistemology of NIH consensus conferences. In Establishing medical reality: Methodological and metaphysical issues in philosophy of medicine, ed. H. Kincaid and J. McKitrick. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Solomon, M. 2011. Group judgment and the medical consensus conference. In Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of medicine, ed. D. Gabbay and J. Woods, 239–254. San Diego: North Holland.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C.R. 2006. Deliberating groups versus prediction markets (or Hayek’s challenge to Habermas). Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1): 192–213.Google Scholar
- Wortman, P.M., A. Vinokur, and L. Schrest. 1982. Evaluation of NIH consensus development process. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. NIH-80-301.Google Scholar