Issues concerning technological risk have increasingly become the subject of deliberative exercises involving participation of ordinary citizens. The most popular topic for deliberation has been genetically modified (GM) foods. Despite the varied circumstances of their establishment, deliberative “minipublics” almost always produce recommendations that reflect a worldview more “precautionary” than the “Promethean” outlook more common among governing elites. There are good structural reasons for this difference. Its existence raises the question of why elites sponsor mini-publics and if policy is little affected by the results of deliberations, questions the possibility of deliberative legitimation of public policy. We make this argument by looking at mini-publics (where possible, a common consensus conference design) on GM foods in France, the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and Switzerland. Deliberative legitimation becomes plausible if elites can attenuate their Promethean outlook. This is possible if ecological modernization discourse pervades their politics; Denmark provides an illustration.
Assouline, G., and P.-B. Joly.2001. The French national report. Assessing debate and participative technology assessment (ADAPTA). http://www.inra.fr/Internet/Directions/SED/science-gouvernance/pub/ADAPTA/france-report.pdf (accessed on October 12, 2006).
2.
Beck, U.1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
3.
Boy, D., D. Donnet-Kamel, and P. Roquelpo.2000. Un exemple de démocratie participative: La Conférence de Citoyens sur les organismes génétiques modifiés. Revue Française de Science Politique50 (4-5): 779-809.
4.
Chambers, S.2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science6:307-26.
5.
Conseil Suisse de la Science.1999. Publiforum. Génie génétique et alimentation. 4-7 juin 1999 à Berne. Rapport du panel de citoyens. Bern: Conseil Suisse de la Science.
6.
Crombie, A., and C. Ducker.2000. Evaluation report, phase 2: First Australian Consensus Conference: Gene technology in the food chain. Canberra, Australia: P. J. Dawson and Associates.
7.
Doury, M.2004. L'activité argumentative. In Concertation, décision, environment: Les conférences de consensus: Un nouveau mode de délibération politique? Rapport final. Paris: Ministère de l'Ecologie et du Développement Durable.
8.
Dryzek, J.S.2005. The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
Dryzek, J.S., and A. Tucker. Forthcoming. Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review.
10.
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 Science10:83-98.
11.
Fishkin, J.1995. The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Fung, A.2003. Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy11:338-67.
13.
Goodin, R.E.2003. Reflective democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14.
Hajer, M.A.1995. The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
Hamlett, P.W. n.d. Enhancing public participation in participatory public policy analysis concerning technology: A report of two Danish-style consensus conferences . Unpublished manuscript. Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
16.
Harrison, S., and M. Mort.1998. Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation. Social Policy and Administration32:60-70.
17.
Hay, C., and B. Rosamond.2002. Globalisation, European integration, and the discursive construction of economic imperatives. Journal of European Public Policy9:147-67.
18.
Hendriks, C.M.2004. Public deliberation and interest organisations: A study of responses to lay citizen engagement in public policy. PhD diss., Australian National University, Canberra.
19.
---. 2005. Consensus conferences and planning cells: Lay citizen deliberations. In The deliberative democracy handbook, edited by J. Gastil and P. Levine, 80-110. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Hirst, P., and G. Thompson.1996. Globalization in question: The international economy and the possibilities of governance. Cambridge , UK: Polity.
21.
Hoban, T.J.1997. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: An international perspective. Nature Biotechnology15:232-4.
22.
Inglehart, R.1990. Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
Joss, S., and J. Durant , eds. 1995. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
24.
Lassen, J.2004. Changing modes of biotechnology governance in Denmark . STAGE discussion paper 3. http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/content/case.studies.html (accessed on March 17, 2006).
25.
Lomborg, B.2001. The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
McKay, E.1999. Evaluation report, phase 1. First Australian Consensus Conference: Gene technology in the food chain. Canberra, Australia: P. J. Dawson and Associates.
27.
Mol, A.P.J., and D. Sonnefeld.2000. Ecological modernization around the world. Environmental Politics9:3-16.
28.
O'Riordan, T., and J. Cameron , eds. 1994. Interpreting the precautionary principle. London: Earthscan.
29.
Parkinson, J.2004. Why deliberate? The encounter between deliberation and new public managers. Public Administration82:377-95.
30.
Reber, B.2005. Technologies et débat démocratique en Europe. De la participation à l'évaluation pluraliste. Revue Française de Science Politique55 (5-6): 811-33.
31.
---. Forthcoming. Sociologie éthique de l'évaluation. Controverses scientifiques et épreuve de la participation et de la délibération démocratiques. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
32.
Simon, J.1996. The ultimate resource 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
Skorupinski B., H. Baranzke, H.W. Ingensiep, and M. Meinhardt.2007. Consensus conferences- A case study: Publiforum in Switzerland with special respect to the role of lay persons and ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics20:37-52.
34.
Smith, G., and C. Wales.2000. Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy . Political Studies48:51-65.
35.
Toke, D.2002. Ecological modernisation and GM food. Environmental Politics11:145-63.
36.
Tucker, A. Forthcoming. Pre-emptive democracy: Oligarchic tendencies in deliberative democracy. Political Studies55.
37.
Vig, N. J., and H. Paschen , eds. 2000. Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. Albany : State University of New York Press.
