Final Report (all chapters)

legislative and regulatory process. Consensus conferences are not initiated by regulators or the
legislative branch. Members of parliament and regulators therefore regard them with
considerable skepticism, as the first British consensus conference on agricultural biotechnology
demonstrated. At the end of the conference, Lord Howie of Troon, chair of the Lords Select
Committee on Biotechnology, after offering the obligatory laudatory remarks went on to explain
in no uncertain terms that the consensus conference report would have no influence on the
parliament. 70
Apparently, the organizers of the first German consensus conference on
reproductive technologies received a similarly frosty reaction from members of the German
parliament.
That legislators and bureaucrats are not willing to relinquish their authority is not surprising.
Consensus conferences may be perceived as an attempt to shift the center of political gravity
from elected representatives and government bureaucracies to the general public. They also
undermine well-established administrative norms. Yet it would be shortsighted to conclude that
the main reason for the failure of consensus conferences to influence national politics is the
(understandable) tendency of politicians and bureaucrats to protect their turf. Just as important is
the naïve understanding of the public, of democracy, and of democratic participation displayed
by advocates of participatory methods. One can hardly fault politicians for pointing out that that
unlike a lay panel, a parliament is a far better and more legitimate representation of the general
public.
An important lesson to be learned from consensus conferences is that size matters.
Organizers of consensus conferences often invest inordinate amounts of time and financial
resources to ensure “balance,” but invariably convene exceedingly small panels. For example,
organizers of the 2001 German consensus conference on reproductive medicine invested
approximately two years recruiting a panel of only 19 members. 71 Other organizers of consensus
conferences have managed to recruit panels of laypersons much faster by focusing on their
regions. The U.S. consensus conference on telecommunication and the Canadian consensus
conference on agricultural biotechnology took this approach. Yet promoters of consensus
conferences have never attempted to broaden participation beyond the usual dozen citizens.
In sum, consensus conferences can be considered deliberative as we understand this term.
They can also be said to rely on knowledgeable panelists. However, consensus conferences, like
most other tools of public participation, do not ensure representativeness, and while they may be
balanced in terms of key socio-demographic variables, they may be unbalanced with respect to
pre-deliberative views and opinions. In its present form, therefore, a consensus conference is not
a viable institutional option.
70
71
Purdue, "Experiments in the Governance of Biotechnology: A Case Study of the UK National Consensus
Conference," p.92.
Silke Schicktanz and Jörg Naumann, eds., Bürgerkonferenz: Streitfall Gendiagnostik. Ein Modellprojekt Der
Bürgerbeteiligung Am Bioethischen Diskurs (Dresden: Deutsches Hygiene-Museum, 2003) p.57-68.
276