The institutionalization of the practice of technology assessment has its origin in the U.S. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was established in 1972 and was the first such institution set up to aid the legislature with S&T policy matters. During the 1980s, a number of European countries such as Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands set up parliament
technology assessment agencies based on the OTA. After the OTA was closed in 1995, most of the innovations in participatory technology assessment such as scenario workshops, consensus conference and deliberative mapping arose in these countries (Sclove, 2010).
45
The Danish Board of Technology (Teknologinaevnet) was established in 1986. It is an independent institution connected to the Danish Parliament or Folketing. In 1995 the Board of Technology became an independent institution with the following purposes:
1. To follow technological developments;
2. to carry out investigations and comprehensive assessments on the possibilities and consequences of technology for society and the citizen;
3. to initiate independent technology assessments; and
4. to communicate the results of the work to Folketinget, to other political decision makers in society, and to the Danish population in order to support and further public debate on technology. (Kluver, 2000, p.174)
The structure of this institution was inspired by the U.S. Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA). The DBT was connected with the Danish Parliament and was to operate as a research and analysis wing but it differed from the OTA in that the public had a much larger role to play. The Danish tradition of public debate and public enlightenment formed the basis of this form of technology assessment (Andersen and Jaeger, 1999; Grundahl, 1995; Kluver, 2000; Horst and Irwin, 2010). The Danish Board of Technology, under its legal mandate, was required to use those methods of technology assessment that involve representatives of the public or ordinary citizens. An important method of participatory technology assessment that has been developed by the Danish Board of Technology is the consensus conference. The consensus conference method itself was a modified version of the original US consensus conference that brought together panels of experts to arrive at a consensus on research findings. Denmark took this consensus model but incorporated a lay citizen panel in dialogue with experts. The first consensus conference was held in Denmark in 1987.
46
The consensus conferences are held on a topic that is of social concern and involves a complexity in that ethical and value judgments are intertwined with social concerns and technical issues. The Danish Board of Technology appoints a steering or advisory committee to oversee the organization of the consensus conference. A random sample of citizens is drawn and about 15 participants are selected to be the lay participants, or participants that have no specific interest in the topic. The DBT defines participants as “(…)lay people without any specific relationship to the subject of the conference. In other words, they do not have any special prior knowledge or qualifications as regards the subject area. Citizens contribute by making their views known in the form of visions, concerns, values, holistic appraisal and everyday experiences.”3 The participants are broadly representative of the population of the country but the sample is not a statistically representative one. It is representative of the demographics of the country. The panelists meet with each other over two weekends before the start of the public forum that is open to all. During these preparatory meetings they go over the information packet/ background material prepared by the DBT. This information has been vetted by the steering committee and covers a wide variety of issues around the tropic. The group also prepares a series of questions that are put to an expert panel during the public forum. Based on these questions the DBT draws a panel of experts who participate in the public forum. The public forum lasts four days, the first two of which involve the participants interacting with the experts while the final two days are spent writing the report based on a consensus among the participants. A basic principle guiding the work of the DBT is that “…technology assessment should include the wisdom and experience of ordinary citizens/lay people; integrate the knowledge and tools of experts; respect the political processes and the working conditions of policy-makers; and build on the democratic tradition in Denmark” (Kluver, 1995, p.41).
47
Another important part of the process is that a facilitator works with the panel of citizens. The facilitator is a non-expert on the topic but has expertise in facilitation, either training or experience or both. He or she should have no interest in influencing the participants but must possess the skills to manage a heterogeneous set of people to work together. The facilitator manages the preparatory meetings as well as chairs the conference. The facilitator assists the panel in preparing the final report by focusing their attention on the key questions to be answered. The project manager and the facilitator work closely during this process, with the facilitator playing an important role in managing the process (Grundahl, 1995).
Mayer and Geurts (1996) describe the topics for which this method of public
participation is particularly suitable as: “1) being of current interest and growing importance in the future; 2) controversial: the issue involves a mess of political, social, and ethical aspects; 3) complex: the issue requires scientific and expert clarification; 4)multiple interests involved: i.e. they involve unresolved issues and interest positions with regard to new technology in society” (p. 236-237). According to the DBT, “consensus conferences are suitable in connection with: a topic of current social relevance; regulation requiring public support. The method is also suitable when there is a need for further public awareness and debate; there is a need to identify attitudes and objectives; there is a need for public input.”4 Consensus conferences in Denmark have been held on varied topics such as “How can we assign value to the environment? (2003); Testing our genes (2002); Road pricing (2001); Electronic surveillance (2000); Genetically modified food (1999) ; The Consumption and Environment of the Future (1996); The Future of Fishing (1996); Gene Therapy (1995)”.
48