ABSTRACT
The academic debate on the democratization of expertise has reached the level of public politics. The US National Research Council in its study on “Understanding Risk” (1996) has suggested “collaborative analysis” as a method adding deliberation to risk analysis and risk evaluation, thus opening advisory processes to broader participation. The British House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology, reacting to the devastating loss of credibility of expertise after the BSE crisis, published its report “Science and Society” (2000). Finally, and perhaps most prominently, the EU, in its White Paper on Democratic Governance (2001) produced in connection with a working group on “Democratizing Expertise,” announced guidelines “on the collection and use of expert advice in the Commission to provide for the accountability, plurality and integrity of the expertise used.” It is justified to speak of a discourse that extends from academic discussions on the challenges of “post-normal science” and a “new mode of knowledge production” to the public debates and declarations on “public engagement with science and technology.” A host of concepts reflect the change in perception that is taking place, some having diffused into the public realm, others still being confined to their academic origins. They all communicate the need to somehow bridge the borderline between politics/power and science/truth. And they all resound the new regime of accountability. “Accountability” suggests that scientific experts are held responsible to political practitioners and beyond, to their constituencies, i.e., the public. “Quality” and “transparency” of scientific advice echo the same expectation voiced, in this case, by the European Commission (EU, 1997). “Participatory Technology Assessment” (PTA) has led to a variety of experiments with “consensus conferences,” “round tables,” and similar devices of deliberation that bring together scientific experts and laymen (Abels and Bora, 2004; Joss and Durant, 1995).
