Final Report (all chapters)

and lay out its main elements. We then discuss whether this approach can be considered a
suitable mechanism of public consultation as defined in section 10.7.
Consensus conferences are nothing new. NIH has been using them in their original form
since the 1970s as a means to bridge the gap between medical research and clinical practice. 60 As
practiced by NIH, the goal of a consensus conference is to craft a consensus among leading
clinical researchers on the best available treatment for a medical condition. It is a collaborative
effort by clinical researchers to resolve a professional controversy over the merits of alternative
therapies. This seems an eminently sensible way to assist practitioners with no access to a
university hospital. 61
In the mid-1980s, the Danish Board of Technology, an institution inspired by the U.S.
Office of Technology Assessment, made the consensus conference concept into a tool for
consulting with the general public on new technological developments. 62 The Danish Board of
Technology is an independent organization wholly funded by the Danish parliament and
governed by a board of directors broadly representative of all major political constituencies. 63
The board has a twofold mission: to advise the parliament on controversial policy questions and
to stimulate a public debate on new technological developments. Since its creation, it has
convened numerous consensus conferences on topics ranging from food irradiation to gene
therapy and teleworking. The institutionalized position of the board, its independence, and its
credibility ensure that the Danish parliament not only takes consensus recommendations
seriously, but on occasion also adopts them. 64 The Danish example spurred numerous imitations.
The Swiss government adopted a similar approach when it created the Office of Technology
Assessment and gave it an advisory function. Like its Danish counterpart, this office has shown
considerable interest in consensus conferences, known as “publiforums.” 65 In addition, as of this
writing, Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, The Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, South Korea, and Switzerland all have conducted at least one consensus
60
61
62
63
64
65
Kim, "Cloning and Deliberation: Korean Consensus Conference," Developing World Bioethics 2, no. 2 (2002);
Derrick Purdue, "Experiments in the Governance of Biotechnology: A Case Study of the UK National
Consensus Conference," New Genetics and Society 18, no. 1 (1999).
A search in the New England Journal of Medicine produced more than 250 articles reporting on consensus
conferences.
Allan D. Sniderman, "Clinical Trials, Consensus Conferences, and Clinical Practice," Lancet 354; JoAnne
Zujewski and Edison T. Liu, "The 1998 St. Gallen's Consensus Conference: An Assessment," Journal of the
National Cancer Institute 90 (1998).
Simon Joss, "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 Policy
25 (1998).
See http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?page=forside.php3&language=uk for more information.
Joss, "Danish Consensus Conferences as a Model of Participatory Technology Assessment: An Impact Study of
Consensus Conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish Public Debate."
See http://www.ta-swiss.ch/framesets/projects-e.htm#publiforum for additional information.
273