Final Report (all chapters)

ioethical dilemma, the credibility and robustness of a process of public consultation are
considerably enhanced.
By exposing all participants to a broad range of different views, beliefs, and values,
deliberation fosters a better understanding of opposing views. Importantly, exposure to different
opinions facilitates the crafting of political compromises. Alternatively, deliberation may help
participants identify innovative solutions that they were not aware of before engaging in face-toface
communication. Deliberation, in other words, can be described as a “discovery process.” 41
Scholars of deliberative democracy will readily recognize these arguments. Our concept of
deliberation bears some similarities with the notions of deliberation espoused by these scholars,
but it also differs in important ways. Advocates of deliberative democracy and their critics seem
to assume that deliberation is either disinterested or entirely self-interested. 42 Neither one of
these assumptions is empirically accurate. Participants in a process of public consultation do not
check their interests and predispositions at the door. Nor it is reasonable to assume that actual
deliberations are always or exclusively informed by opportunistic, self-interested norms. More
often than not, self-interest and what may be called public-mindedness coexist. This means that
deliberation has only a limited capacity to bring about consensus. Deliberation can move
conflicting parties toward a consensus, but there is no reason to assume that this will always or
necessarily be so. Some controversies may be more difficult to solve through deliberation than
others. Deliberation is no substitute for other mechanisms of decision-making, such as voting. In
this view, we differ from advocates of deliberative democracy, who assume, more or less
explicitly, that deliberation ultimately will move participants toward finding a consensus.
That deliberation does not necessarily produce consensus is demonstrated by our national
conversation about new biomedical research. Since President Bush announced his policy on stem
cell research in August of 2001, much has been said and written on national television and in the
news media about reproductive cloning, research cloning, and stem cell research. From a
quantitative perspective, the debate has been vigorous. Since we started monitoring the print
media in early 2003, we have gathered almost 3,000 news stories on these and closely related
topics. 43 Yet one cannot avoid the conclusion that this conversation has not contributed to
bringing opposing parties closer together. To the contrary, the existing positions seem to have
hardened, leaving no room for political compromise. What has been unfolding in the news media
is the discursive equivalent of a bullfight: Each side has persistently but unsuccessfully tried to
impose its fixed views on the other and on the nation as a whole.
41
42
43
This term is borrowed from Friedrich Hayek, who introduced it to describe market mechanisms. Friedrich A.
Hayek, "Der Wettbewerb Als Entdeckungsverfahren," in Kieler Vorträge (Kiel: 1968). That in Hayek’s concept
of the market face-to-face communication plays a crucial role is no coincidence.
Richard A. Posner, Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003),
p.131-43. See also Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict
Cannot Be Avoided in Politics, What Should Be Done About It. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1996).
News stories are available online at http://www.biotechgov.org.
265