|
|
The author was recently invited to take part in a Consensus Conference as a member of the lay-panel. The Conference was organised by the RIDER unit of the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium on the initiative of the MONITOR/FAST programme of the EC (DG XII). The subject for the conference was "Science, Technology and Community Cohesion". The result of the conference was a "Consensus Statement" prepared by the panel of eight lay people working under the moderation of Prof. T. AGERSNAP (Copenhagen Business School). The panel's statement is intended for the benefit of Community, national and regional policy-makers and it is a public document.
The following paper describes :
A copy of the panels' consensus statement on Science, Technology and Community Cohesion" is attached as Annex I.
Prof. T. AGERSNAP in his paper to the ECTA III Conference, Copenhagen 1992 describes a consensus conference as follows :
"A consensus conference is a chaired public hearing with an audience from the public and with active participation of 10-15 lay people (sometimes called the jury or the panel) and a corresponding number of different experts. The experts may be from different disciplines and/or from different schools within a discipline. The conference lasts three days for the active participants plus the time for preparation. The purpose is to produce an informed debate on a limited subject presented in the form of six to seven main questions to the conference."
The idea for the consensus conference originated in the USA; it has been used by the NIH (National Institutes of Health). In the USA the consensus conference (development) conference has been used specifically to try to resolve issues of biomedical technology."
The NIH describes the objectives of consensus conferences as : -
"NIH Consensus Development Conferences are convened to evaluate available scientific available information and resolve safety and efficacy issues related to biomedical technology. The resultant NIH Consensus Statements are intended to advance understanding of the technology or issue in question and to be useful to health professionals and the public".
In Europe the concept has been taken up and developed most notably by the Danish Board of Technology. The Danes have organised a number (5-10) of conferences over the past five years; they have dealt particularly with the scientific and technological issues surrounding modern biotechnology (genetic engineering).
The underlying purpose of the consensus
conference is to provide a means by which ordinary (lay) members of society can be
involved in a purposeful way in influencing the decisions reached by politicians on
important scientific and technical issues. In our modern industrialised society key
decisions which determine the future shape of society and which effect all of its members
are being taken increasingly by a few "experts".
Most members of present-day society no longer understand the scientific background to key
decisions concerning for example nuclear power, environmental pollution, etc. The lack of
meaningful involvement by the majority of the population in key technological
decision-making is leading to a rejection of the democratic process and a mistrust of
'all-things' scientific.
The consensus conference aims to bring ordinary people into the debate by means of a broadly-based group of selected representatives - the lay panel. The panel is given a variety of views of the issues by 'experts', who they may interrogate until they gain the necessary level of understanding. Finally, the panel prepares a consensus statement on the issues raised and this statement is formally presented to the politicians and the media.
The panel is helped in its work by a skilled - but non-specialist - moderator who ensures that the group functions efficiently i.e. actually produces an intelligible document according to the imposed time-scale. The panel is also provided with background documentation prior to the conference about the short (ca. 15 minutes) presentations to be made by the 'experts'. The 'experts' are also instructed by the organisers as to their particular role in the conference process; in particular they must realise that a consensus conference is not a conventional academoc seminar - and present their ideas accrodingly. The conference organisers must also provide very efficient technical facilities and above all a secretarial service which can operate effectively throughout the night of the second day - during which time the panel's statement is drafted!
The programme for the conference is given in Annex II.
The introductory statement to those participating in the Conference contained the following paragraphs prepared by the organisers to describe in broad terms the issue to be addressed :
"At the heart of the difficult process of building the European Community there lies what appears to be a priority, if not a vital stake for European unity, namely, economic and social cohesion. The major disparities that subsist within the EC are a very real threat to European integration and hamper attempts to enlarge the current Community."
"This conference proposes tackling this issue from the angle of the roles of science and technology in this cohesion, creating a tie between two important areas of Community policy, namely, research and technological advances on the one hand and the balanced development of the regions of the European Community on the other hand."
The lay-panel - guided by Prof. AGERSNAP - comprised the following members :
The wide range of European nationalities (9 out of 12 Member States) and of educational and professional backgrounds is noteworthy - as was the linguistic mix which ensured that whilst both french and english were used as working languages (the statement is available in both) not all members were fully comfortable with philosophical discussions in both languages (the author included). Consequently, on occasions, it was necessary to form two working groups - one english-speaking, one french-speaking and then subsequently to combine the two outputs. This was but one way in which the panel benefitted from the cultural diversity of Europe!
After the formal opening of the conference by eminent persons from the Commission of the EC, the Economic and Social Committee and representatives of the Belgian and Portuguese governments, the panel received presentations from a wide variety (13 in all) of academic and regional-planning experts; each presented an aspect of the problem in, so far as was possible, factual terms. The panel then interrogated the presenters so as to establish a clear understanding of the messages being conveyed (if any). This process was conducted before an audience of some 150 conference delegates who were also given the opportunity to ask questions of the expert presenters - once the lay-panel had concluded its own questioning. A skilled expert moderator conducted each session of the conference.
Following the expert presentations the panel retired to prepare its consensus report. This was required to be "short and to the point" and ideally no more than about six pages long (it actually comprises about eight pages of double-spaced typing). The panel was also invited by means of a set of Guidelines (see Annex III) to provide answers to a variety of questions deemed relevant to the subject by the organisers of the conference. In practice the panel did try to provide the requested answers, but could not accept this as the most important priority for its work which was to provide the most comprehensive and meaningful consensus view of the key issues - in the short time available. In retrospect the author found that the acute time pressure and the need to gain consensus support for statements addressing complex issues constituted a highly stimulating challenge. The Consensus Statement presented in Annex I is the product of this high-pressure working process which involved the group over about 12 hours in several sessions - some extending far into the night. It is an example - for good or bad - of what a disparate group of highly-motivated people can achieve in addressing a very difficult issue in a very short time.
The Consensus Conference process is an attempt to overcome the perennial human problem of non-communication or; at best, miscommunication between 'experts', who know a great deal about one particular area of knowledge, and the wider audience of 'stakeholders' who lack the specialised knowledge, but need to understand the essential elements of what the 'expert' knows - so as to apply this 'essence' in a practical way for the benefit of the society - or company. The decision-makers in any human organisation are never specialist experts; the very essence of management of an enterprise requires the ability to take a broad, non-specialist view. But there is a need for the special, radical new-thinking generated by experts - who may often be unaware of the full implications of their knowledge for the enterprise or for society as a whole.
In the conventional conference, seminar or symposium, experts talk usually to other experts - and this process of academic cross-fertilisation of ideas is a well-tested and proven process. But how does an expert - unless he is one of those very skilled communicators - convey his ideas to the general public; or to his Board of Management?
The Consensus Conference addresses this problem of communication by interposing between the 'experts' and the wider audience a panel of lay-people :
The use of this process by the chemical industry can be envisaged in a number of ways:-
Many of the issues facing the industry or individual companies today are so complicated that it is not reasonable to expect senior managers/Board members to understand fully eithereither the scientific basis for the arguments or the global significance of the decisions which must be taken. A company-wide or industry-wide consensus conference might be a useful tool for gaining a general understanding of the state-of-knowledge (e.g. global warning, ozone depletion, heavy metals in the environment), or of the need for company/industry action (eg. confront or promote legislation, the value of chlorine and its derivatives to society, the economics of plastic recycling).
We know from opinion surveys that the general public is not only ignorant about the chemical industry but also mistrusts what it says and does. The use of the consensus conference could be envisaged as a means to gain broad public understanding and acceptance of industry positions. Experts from companies could make the factual presentations of the issue (plastics recycling versus incineration, the value of chlorine and its derivatives, industrial applications of biotechnology, the importance of energy costs, etc.). A lay panel might comprise people from pressure groups, academia (non-expert in the field), customers, suppliers, employees, family members, etc. The audience could comprise all interested people, public invitation or an invited gathering.
The is a clear need to improve the communication on complex scientific and technical issues between the 'experts' and the general public/management of non-specialists. Both within companies and in the world at large a greater degree of informed dialogue and participation is necessary prior to decision-making in order to obtain a stronger commitment on the part of those affected to the decisions taken on their behalf.
The Consensus Conference seems to be a useful tool (in appropriate format) for addressing some of these problems.
| SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & COMMUNITY COHESION |
Louvain-la-Neuve
2-4 December 1992
PANEL's CONSENSUS STATEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
This Consensus Conference addressed the issue of the role of Science and Technology in the development of cohesion. The role of Science and Technology as an important element in a family of integrated coherent Community policies in promoting cohesion was explored. The imperative of improved industrial competitiveness through research and technological development was contrasted with the need for the balanced development of the nations, regions and localities of Europe.
The very real disparities in economic development and in the welfare and prosperity of people across the European Community constitute a threat to integration and to its enlargement to embrace all European nations.
The development of Economic and social cohesion through the removal of harmful disparities between nations, regions, territories and citizens must be a priority for those working to create a true community for Europe.
On the other hand, the cultural scientific and technological diversity within Europe constitutes a rich source of stimulus for the innovation on which our future welfare and prosperity will depend.
The goal of the ConsensusConference, as it is called, is to establish a dialogue between specialists (academics and regional policymakers) and laymen (the panel of members of the civil society) that culminate in a "consensusstatement" aimed at Community, national and regional policymakers. This approach enables the debate to leave the technocratic arena by sparking a frank dialogue between the experts and citizens of the "civil society
The members of the civil society panel were:
This conference was organized by RIDER (Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Développement Régional, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium) at the instigation of the European Community's MONITOR/FAST (Forecasting and Assessment in Science and Technology) programme. It enjoyed the support of the Belgian Minister of Scientific Policy and National Scientific and Cultural Institutions, the Minister President of Wallonia's Regional Executive, Scottisb Enterprise, tbe five regions of Portugal (Algarve, Centro, Alentejo, Norte, Lisboa e Vale do Tejo), and the Loire CountryEurouest region.
1. WHAT IS COHESION ?
The concept of cohesion is derived from the values on which European society rests, notably human rights, and includes balanced and harmonious development, peace, democracy, social justice and convergence through progress.
In a negative sense, cohesion may be defined as a rejection of the development of a "multispeed" society, with some regions lagging far behind the centre and with some citizens lagging far behind the majority.
Positively, it is a willingness to act systematically to reduce disparities and inequalities to allow every region and every citizen to participate and draw benefit, in a fair and proper way, from economic, social and cultural progress.
Cohesion is therefore both a choice and a necessary objective, stemming from a clearly stated political will.
Cohesion is a necessity because, without cohesion, the Community would lose much of its credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of European public opinion and in the world at large. The absence of cohesion may also lead to the development of social unrest, violence, despair, thereby creating enormous social costs, as well as the isolation of certain regions.
Cohesion is thus a willingness to build a Europe founded on solidarity. This implies, in the first place, an adhesion of the people and the States which form the European Community. Cohesion at the European level can only exist if national and regional cohesion is developed at the same time. Because it is founded on the general awareness of a common identity, cohesion policies at the level of the Community and at the regional and national levels have of necessity to be complementary to one another.
The desire for cohesion and the rejection of disparities have to be part of all Community policies. Each Directorate-General, each Division, in the formulation of each Communication, Regulation or Directive, should consider carefully these aspects, in particular, when matters related to key policies such as the Single Market, EMU, social protection and industrial policies are involved.
Cohesion is therefore a challenge for the European Community. But at the same time, since the Community is part of a global system, it must take into account the needs of its neighbours and those of the rest of the world.
In this global sense too, the Community must express a clear political willingness to reduce inequalities and a willingness to seek cohesion on a worldwide scale.
Whilst seeking to reduce disparities and inequalities, cohesion must not lead to uniformity but should recognize regional, social, sexual, ethnic and cultural diversities. Cohesion rests on these diversities and tries to combine them in a common perspective, that we could call "European citizenship".
Diversity generates an addedvalue for the whole, i.e it favours synergy and mutual interaction. Diversity must lead to mutually beneficial exchange.
As an horizontal preoccupation for all European policies, cohesion is strongly determined by factors such as education and training, industrial development, technology, and infrastructure.
Because of this, S&T policy, in conjunction with other policies, teas a role to play. It has and must, under certain conditions, contribute to the reinforcement of cohesion.
II. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY AND COHESION
S&T will obviously develop with or without governmental intervention, but if left entirely to market forces, will tend to concentrate towards centres of excellence. This will worsen disparities and create greater barriers to the development of the periphery (and its competitivity which in turn makes it eves less attractive for new S&T investment). We take it as a fact that S&T has a role to play in enhancing cohesion. The development of science and technology infrastructure, and access of the regions to the latest technology for the development of business opportunities and competitivity, is essential in the process of cohesion. At the same time, S&T is not the most important element or vector of cohesion (education, transport, telecommunications are other important factors).
A perhaps more important consideration than whether or not S&T can act to promote cohesion, is how can cohesion be built into all aspects of S&T policy. Cohesion thereby becomes a central issue, rather than a sideissue for treatment by small, top down policies that have little impact in overcoming disparities in S&T.
This concept challenges not only the policymakers at national and Community level, but also the regional policy makers and economic actors who must take the initiative in response to the opportunities offered to them in such "openedout" policies.
We have identified some of the shortcomings of existing Community S&T policies which work against cohesion:
S&T policy should of course incorporate the following elements:
However, the panel feels that a sound S&T policy should incorporate the following characteristics in order to meet the challenge of cohesion:
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are a set of policy recommendations arising from the panel's consideration of the conference papers:
A. Making use of regional diversity
B. Supporting exchange, co-operation and education
C. Interaction and investments
D. Traditional industries
CONCLUSIONS
The panel's key points for action by the political institutions of the European Community and its Member States are: