Issue 33
January 2001

Copyright
Prairie Grains Magazine
January 2001

“Consensus Conference” helps public sort technical issues such as biotechnology

How might the views of ordinary people be brought into public debates about controversial, technical topics such as food safety and biotechnology? Perhaps through a concept that is called a “consensus conference.”

A consensus conference is an experiment in democracy which reintegrates citizens back into decision-making about controversial areas of science and technology. Through the use of rigorous rules, a consensus conference aims at an ideal, in which a given topic is explored on the basis of the best available knowledge and the widest possible breadth of views, and discussed in open and unbiased dialogue.

This dialogue takes place between two panels. One is a panel of citizens, a cross-section of society, previously uninformed about the topic, but with a range of attitudes and values to it. The other is a panel of experts, from a range of disciplines (including opinion leaders in the community), and also with a range of different and sometimes conflicting views.

Typically, 10-16 citizens are chosen to be on the lay panel. The panel prepares for the conference during intensive briefing sessions, and decide on their key questions. The conference is designed to answer these key questions, with at least one “pro” and one “anti” speaker on each question.

During the three-day conference, which is open to the public, the lay panel hears from the speakers, asks follow-up questions, then retires like a jury to produce a report regarding the issue at hand. A verdict need not be completely unanimous.

The final report expresses the panel’s expectations, concerns and recommendations. It is directed to policy-makers, scientists, industry, media and the general public. One reason for consensus conferencing, say organizers, is to prove that lay people can make sense of complicated technical issues when given the time and resources to do so.

Idea originated in U.S., perfected in Denmark
The consensus conference idea actually originated in the United States about 20 years ago, when “technology assessment” panels were brought together to decide how new medical technologies should be used. But this was a case of reaching consensus among experts. It wasn’t until the mid 1980s, in Denmark, that the idea of involving lay people evolved.

The bread section of an Australian grocery store, which in terms of products and appearance is on par with grocery stores in America.

Nowadays, the introduction of lay voices into the consensus conference has become its principal distinguishing feature. Norway, the Netherlands, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and New Zealand have all organized one or more consensus conferences or similar debates. Canada held its first consensus conference just before Australia’s (it was also about gene technology in food — in fact, that’s been a very popular subject for consensus conferences).

Denmark is the country where citizen panels have the most influence — here, each consensus conference is organized by a government department (the Danish Board of Technology). They take place in Parliament house, and routinely feed into government policy and legislation.

Australian Biotech Consensus Conference
Australia’s first such conference took place in March, 1999, in Canberra’s Old Parliament House. So-called “ordinary” Australians who didn’t even necessarily know what a gene was before they got roped into it took part in the conference. The market research company employed to do the recruiting of the lay panel were required to select a group consisting of 14 people reflecting a range of gender, age, education, occupation, and geographic location consistent with the Australian population (as per the 1996 census). The panel also had to include a variety of points of view on genetically modified foods.

A group of experts was called upon to answer the very thorny questions the lay panel came up with. Each expert had only 15 minutes to answer a specific question, devised by the lay panel and given to them in advance. At least one “pro” and one “anti” speaker — again, chosen by the lay panel — responded to each question. Not surprisingly, some of their views were diametrically opposed.

Following an intense three days, the lay panel presented their final consensus in the form of a written report. Recommendations were given on 10 different facets of gene technology in the food chain: Regulations; Processes of Decision-making; Science and Risk; Environment and Health; Alternatives to Gene Technology; Ethics and Morality; Multinational Corporations; International Conventions; Public Awareness and Participation; and Labeling and Choice.

Several months after the Consensus Conference, the Australian government announced that it would set up a new body, Biotechnology Australia, to coordinate the regulation of gene technology. Broader public consultation also began following the Australian Consensus Conference.

See the following links on the Internet for more information about the Australian Consensus Conference: www.austmus. gov.au/consensus/09.htm; www.abc. net.au/science/slab/consconf/default. htm; and the Canadian Consensus Conference: www.ucalgary.ca/~pubconf.

Source: Australian Museum, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.