The article gives an account of the first Austrian nationwide Danish-style consensus conference, held in the summer of 2003, treating policy issues related to genetic data. Consensus conferences are currently widely discussed for their promise to democratize fields of technological decision-making which are both crucial to the fate of modern society and inaccessible to public involvement. Instead of evaluating the “democratic efficiency” of the deliberative exercise, the essay will contextualize the event in local, as well as international developments comprising discursive, institutional and political elements. Rather than offering definitive claims about the normative significance of the rapidly diffusing deliberative technique, the discussion of a local experience with it will arrive at ambivalent conclusions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andersen, I. and Jaeger, B. (1999) “Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards More Democratic Decision-Making,”Science and Public Policy26(5): 331-340 .
2.
Barber, B. (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press .
3.
Cohen, J. and Rogers, J. (1995) Associations and Democracy. London: Verso .
4.
Communication Matters (ed.) (2003) BürgerInnenkonferenz: Genetische Daten Woher, Wohin, Wozu?Wien: Communication Matters .
5.
Davison, A. , Barnes, I. and Schibeci, R. (1997) “Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology,”Science Technology & Human Values22(3): 317-348 .
6.
Durant, J. , Evans, G.A. and Thomas, G.P. (1989) “The Public Understanding of Science,”Nature340: 11-14 .
7.
Einsiedel, E.F. , Erling, J. and Breck, T. (2001) “Publics at the Technology Table: the Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada and Australia,”Public Understanding of Science10(1): 83-98 .
8.
Fishkin, J. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press .
9.
Gerlich, P. (1997) “Politische Kultur der Subsysteme,” in H. Dachs , P. Gerlich , H. Gottweis , F. Horner , V. Lauber and W. Müller (eds) Handbuch des politischen Systems Österreichs, pp. 506-513. Wien: Manz .
10.
Gottweis, H. (1988) Governing Molecules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
11.
Gottweis, H. (2000) “Politische Mobilisierung, BürgerInnenbewegungen und Ansätze zur Ausbildung neuer Organisationsformen von Politik in Österreich,” Informationen zur politischen Bildung 17: 60-7.
12.
Grabner, P. , Peissl, W. and Torgerson, H. (2002) “Austria: Methodological Innovations from a Latecomer,” in S. Joss and S. Bellucci (eds) Participatory Technology Assessment, pp. 61-74. London: University of Westminster Press .
13.
Guston, D.H. (1999) “Evaluating the first U.S. Consensus Conference: the Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy,”Science, Technology & Human Values24(4): 451-482 .
14.
Held, D. (1996) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press .
15.
Heller, C. (2002) “From Scientific Risk to paysan savoir-faire: Peasant Expertise in the French and Global Debate over GM Crops,”Science as Culture11(1): 5-37 .
16.
Joly, P.-B. and Marris, C. (2003) “La participation contre la mobilisation? Une analyse comparée du debat sur les OGM en France et au Royaume-Uni,”Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée10(2): 195-206 .
17.
Joly, P.-B., Marris, C. and Hermitte, M.-A. (2003) “ `A la recherche d’une ‘democratie technique’—Enseignements de la confèrence citoyenne sur les OGM en France,” Natures Science Société 11: 3-15.
18.
Joss, S. (1998) “Danish Consensus Conferences as a Model of Participatory Technology Assessment: an Impact Study of Consensus Conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish Public Debate,”Science and Public Policy25(1): 2-22 .
19.
Larédo, P. and Mustar, P. (eds) (2001) Research and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar .
20.
Lassen, J. (1999) “Changing Modes of Biotechnology Assessment in Denmark,” in R. Miettinen (ed.) Biotechnology and Public Understanding of Science, pp. 82-90. Helsinki: Academy of Finland .
21.
Levidow, L. and Marris, C. (2001) “Science and Governance in Europe: Lessons from the Case of Agricultural Biotechnology,”Science and Public Policy28(5): 345-360 .
22.
Martin, J.-P. (2005) “La Confédération paysanne et José Bové, des actions médiatiques au service d’un projet?,” Ruralia, January [online]. Available: http://ruralia.revues.org/document142.html.
23.
Mayer, I. and Geurts, J. (1998) “Consensus Conferences as Participatory Policy Analysis: A Methodological Contribution to the Social Management of Technology,” in P. Wheale , R. Schomberg and P. Glasner (eds) The Social Management of Genetic Engineering, pp. 279-301. Aldershot: Ashgate .
24.
Mayer, I. , De Vries, J. and Geurts, J. (1995) “An Evaluation of the Effects of Participation in a Consensus Conference,” in S. Joss and J. Durant (eds) Public Participation in Science: the Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, pp. 109-124 . London: Science Museum.
25.
Menasse, P. (2003) “Warum eine PR-Agentur eine BürgerInnenkonferenz organisiert,” in Communication Matters (ed.) BürgerInnenkonferenz: Genetische Daten Woher, Wohin, Wozu?, p. 68. Wien: Communication Matters.
26.
Mohr, A. (2002) “Of Being Seen to do the Right Thing: Provisional Findings from the First Australian Consensus Conference on Gene Technology in the Food Chain,”Science and Public Policy29(1): 2-12 .
27.
Rayner, S. (2003) “Democracy in the Age of Assessment: Reflections on the Roles of Expertise and Democracy in Public-sector Decision Making,”Science and Public Policy30(3): 163-170 .
28.
RFT (Rat für Forschung und Technologieentwicklung) (2003) Tätigkeitsbericht. Wien: RFT.
29.
Riegler, J. and Knoll, E.M. (2002) “Kultur liegt in der Natur des Menschen!,” September [online]. Available: http://science.orf.at/science/gingrich/58685.
30.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2000) “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,”Science, Technology & Human Values25(1): 3-29 .
31.
Rowe, G. , Marsh, R. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) “Evaluation of a Deliberative Conference,”Science, Technology & Human Values29(1): 88-121 .
32.
science.orf.at (2003) “Forderungen der BürgerInnenkonferenz liegen vor,” June ronlineo. Available: http://science.orf.at/science/news/79025.
33.
Seifert, F. (2002) Gentechnik - Öffentlichkeit - Demokratie: Der Österreichische Gentechnik-Konflikt im internationalen Kontext. München: Profil.
34.
Seifert, F. (2003) “DemokratietheoretischeUberlegungen zum österreichischen Gentechnik-Konflikt,” SWS-Rundschau 43: 106-28.
35.
Van den Daele, W. , Pühler, A. and Sukopp, H. (1997) Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Crops: A Participatory Technology Assessment. Berlin: WZB .
36.
Weale, A. (2001) “Science Advice, Democratic Responsiveness and Public Policy,”Science and Public Policy28(6): 413-421 .
37.
Whiteside, K.H. (2003) “French Regulatory Republicanism and the Risks of Genetically Engineered Crops,”French Politics1: 153-174 .
38.
Zimmer, R. (2002) “Begleitende Evaluation der Bürgerkonferenz ‘Streitfall Gendiagnostik,’” Fraunhofer Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung, Karlsruhe [online]. Available: http://www.isi.fhg.de/bt/projekte/buergerkonf.
