Democracy at its best? The consensus conference in a cross-national perspective

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 13-35

  Nielsen, Annika Porsborg ^a   Lassen, Jesper ^a   Sandøe, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Consensus conference; Cross national evaluation; Deliberative democracy; Democratic legitimacy; GMO; Lay and expert knowledge; Models of democracy; Participatory technology assessment; Public participation; TA

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT SYSTEM; GENETIC ENGINEERING; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH;

EID: 33847053984     PISSN: 11877863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10806-006-9018-5     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Andersen I. -E., B. Jaeger (1999), Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards more Democratic Decision-making Science and Public Policy vol. 26: 5
2. BECAGP (1997), Europe Ambivalent on Biotechnology Nature 387:845-847
3. Benhabib S. (1996a), Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy, In S. Benhabib (eds), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
4. Benhabib, S. (ed.) (1996b), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.)
5. Cohen J. (1996), Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy, In: S. Benhabib (eds), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
6. Cooke B., U. Kothari (2001), Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books
7. Dahl R. A. (1998), On Democracy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
8. De Nasjonale Forskningsetiske Komitéer, Kvikklaks og Teknoburger. Sluttrapport fra Lekfolkskonferansen om genmodifisert mat (NENT, Oslo, 1996)
9. Einsiedel, E. F., E. Jelsøe, and T. Breck (2001), "Publics at the Technology Table: The Consensus Conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia," Public Understanding of Science 10, pp. 83-98, IOP Publishing Ltd. and The Science Museum
10. Elster J. (1997), The Market and the Forum. Three varieties of Political Theory, In: J. Bohman, W. Rehg (eds), Deliberative Democracy. Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
11. Fischer F. (2000), Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press
12. Fishkin, J. S. and P. Laslett (eds.) (2003), Debating Deliberative Democracy (Blackwell, Oxford)
13. Goven, J. (2003), "Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization," Public Understanding of Science 12, pp. 423-440, IOP Publishing Ltd. and The Science Museum
14. Habermas J. (1996), Three Normative Models of Democracy, In S. Benhabib (eds) Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
15. Hennen L. (1999), Participatory Technology Assessment: A Response to Technical Modernity? Science and Public Policy 26(5): 303-312
16. Ignatieff, M. (1992), "Why 'Community' is a Dishonest Word," The Observer editorial page, May 3
17. Joly P. B., C. Marris, G. Assouline, J. Lemarié (1999), Quand les candides évaluent les OGM: Nouveau modèle de "démocratie technique"ou mise en scène du débat public? [When the ingenuous evaluate GMOs: A new model for democratized technology or the staging of a public debate?] Annales des Mines, Paris, April
18. Joss, S. and J. Durant (eds.) (1995), Public Participation in Science. The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe (Science Museum UK, EC Directorate General 12)
19. Joss, S. and S. Bellucci (eds.) (2002), Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives (Centre for the Study of Democracy, London)
20. Lassen, J., J. Østergaard, K. K. Jensen, and P. Sandoøe (2003), Consensus Conferences. Description and Analytical Frame. Interim report, Ethical Bio-Technology Assessment Tools for Agriculture and Food Production, Bio-TA Tools (QLG6-CT-2002-02594). LEI, The Hague
21. Michelman F. I. (1989), Conceptions of Democracy in American Constitutional Argument: Voting Rights Florida Law Review 41:443-490