Consensus conferences involve a small group of citizens who go through a learning process on a given technological issue, engage experts, and develop an assessment of the key issues they identify as critical. These models of technology assessment, intended to make the process more democratic, have increasingly been used in Europe. This study examines the first application in Canada on the issue of food biotechnology. It examines the consensus conference as a model of public deliberation with specific attention to communication processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bessette, J.
1994. The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American national government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Blumer, H.
1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Bohman, J.
1996. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
4.
Canadian Biotechnology Strategy
. 1998. News release. Ottawa: Industry Canada. August.
5.
Citizens' Conference on Food Biotechnology. 1999. Final Report. Calgary, Alberta. 7 March.
6.
Cohen, J.
1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity: Normative analysis of the state, edited by A. Hamlin and P. Pettit, 44-58. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
7.
Dewey, J.
1988. The public and its problems. In John Dewey: The later works, 1925-1953, Vol. 2, 1925-1927, 3-12. Carbondale, IL: University of Southern Illinois Press.
8.
Einsiedel, E. F.
1997. Biotechnology and the Canadian public: A national survey and some international comparisons. Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, September. University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
9.
Einsiedel, E. F.
1998. The market for credible information in biotechnology. In Biotechnology and the consumer, edited by B. Knoppers and A. Mathios, 220-264. Amsterdam: Klüwer.
10.
Einsiedel, E. F.
, and D. L. Eastlick. 1999. Canadian Citizens' Conference on Food Biotechnology: A reflexive evaluation. Unpublished report, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
11.
Einsiedel, E. F.
, E. Jelsøe, and T. Breck. in press. Publics at the technology table: The Australian, Canadian and Danish consensus conferences on food biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science.
12.
Elster, J.
1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Fearon, J.
1998. Deliberation as discussion. In Deliberative democracy, edited by J. Elster, 44-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Fishkin, J.
1995. The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
Frankenfeld, P. J.1992. Technological citizenship: A normative framework for risk studies. Science, Technology, and Human Values17 (4): 459-484.
16.
French Citizens' Conference
. 1998. Final report: The use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture and food. Unpublished report, Paris, France.
17.
Friedland, L.1996. Electronic democracy and the new citizenship. Media, Culture and Society18 (2): 185-212.
18.
Gambetta, D.
1998. “Claro!”: An essay on discursive machismo. In Deliberative democracy, edited by J. Elster, 19-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Glasmeier, A.
1995. Consensus conferences, the media and public information in the Netherlands. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by S. Joss and J. Durant, 67-73. London: Science Museum.
20.
Gorsche, M.
1999. Evaluation of the communication activities for the consensus conference on food biotechnology. Unpublished report, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
21.
Grundahl, J.
1995. The Danish consensus conference model. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by S. Joss and J. Durant, 31-40. London: Science Museum.
22.
Habermas, J.
1984. The theory of communicative action, Vols. 1 and 2. Boston: Beacon Press.
23.
Hamstra, A.
1995. The role of the public in instruments of constructive technology assessment. In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, edited by S. Joss and J. Durant, 53-66. London: Science Museum.
24.
Hoban, T.1997. Consumer acceptance of biotechnology: An international perspective. Nature Biotechnology15:232-234.
25.
Inglehart, R.
1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Jacoby, I.1985. The consensus development program of the National Institutes of Health: Current practices and historical perspectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care1:420-432.
27.
Janis, I.
1972. Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
28.
Joss, S.
, and J. Durant. 1995a. Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.
29.
Joss, S.
, and J. Durant. 1995b. The U.K. national consensus conference on plant biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science4 (2): 195-204.
30.
Kelly, M.T.
1999. A website evaluation of Designer genes at the dinner table. Unpublished report, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
31.
Lowey, M.
1999. New rules urged for designer food. Calgary Herald, 8 March, A1.
32.
Luhman, N.
1995. Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33.
Manin, B.1987. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory15 (3): 338-368.
34.
Mayer, I.
, and J. Geurts. 1999. Consensus conferences as participatory policy analysis: A methodological contribution to the social management of technology. In The social management of genetic engineering, edited by P. Wheale, R. von Schomburg, and P. Glasner, 279-301. Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
35.
Nino, C.S.
1996. The constitution of deliberative democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
Pitkin, H.
, and S. Shumer. 1982. On participation. Democracy2 (4): 43-54.
37.
Powell, D.
, and W. Leiss. 1997. Mad cows and mother's milk: The perils of poor risk communication. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
38.
Sanders, L.1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory25 (3): 347-376.
39.
Stokes, S.
1998. Pathologies of deliberation. In Deliberative democracy, edited by J. Elster, 123-139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Task Force on Biotechnology
. 1981. Biotechnology: A development plan for Canada. Report to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Ottawa: MOSST.
