UK Consensus Conference on Biotechnology

Reports of consensus conferences, which originated in Denmark, are difficult to find in English. Luckily, they have been used more than two dozen times in numerous countries outside of Denmark, including at least two in the UK – one on plant biotechnology in 1994 (before any biotech products had reached the open market) and one on radioactive waste management in 1999. Geoffrey Lee, one of the lay panelists in the 1994 conference, described his experience in Joss and Durant’s book Public Participation in Science https://www.amazon.com/Public-Participation-Science-Consensus-Conferences/dp/0901805858. His account, summarized here, gives us a provocative feel for these events.

Lee, a bank operations manager, answered an ad in his local paper, sending in a letter of interest. After being accepted, he was soon deluged with prepared information on plant biotechnology. His first preparatory weekend was held in Oxford September 2, 1994. The sixteen lay panelists were eight men and eight women, ranging in age from eighteen to sixty-five. They got to know each other over dinner amidst pleasant college surroundings. They studied hard all weekend and heard from a scientist, an industrialist, a regulator and an environmentalist – all offering different views. Although Lee found it all quite overwhelming, he also noticed he was beginning to make sense of the issues involved.

The lay panelists, who had some major differences at the start, discussed their subject incessantly, even over meals and at the pub. As their knowledge of the subject expanded, they began to wonder if they would ever get a report done in the few days they had together. They were also concerned about how much their facilitator was getting involved in the content of their discussions, rather than just sticking to the process. At any rate, as exhausted as he was, Lee returned home excited about what lay ahead.

THE HEAT TURNS ON

During the second preparatory weekend, in Abingdon, the lay panelists began to feel real pressure. Reporters and TV people were there to interview them and watch the proceedings. Some were suspicious that the panelists were biased, and that the whole thing was “an industry public relations exercise.” Undaunted, the panelists heard from more experts, some of whom they had had a role in choosing. Lee reported that under questioning, some opposing experts “came very close to blows, much to the amazement of the lay-panel members.” The panel seemed to have felt quite empowered, rather than manipulated. They were quite involved in many aspects of planning the final conference – to the extent that they felt they had spent too much time planning the stage layout rather than on selecting their roster of experts and on the best strategy for questioning them.

Between that weekend and the public consensus conference, many lay panelists tried to do research on the subject in their communities, only to find that hardly any of their fellow citizens were interested in plant biotechnology.

When the panelists arrived at London’s Regent’s College for the public consensus conference, they were all happy to see one another and eager to get on with it, but were anxious about appearing on stage before a large audience. They checked out the stage layout the night before. Bright and early the next morning, they were already being interviewed by media who were trying to predict the tone of their final report. After official introductions, welcomes and explanations to the sizable audience, the day’s interrogation of experts began. All the lay-panel members asked questions, made comments, and soon started to enjoy the debate.

The experts – researchers, company representatives, environmentalists, and consumer groups – treated them well. Environmentalists in the audience, how- ever, expressed doubt in their ability to understand the technical complexity of the subject well enough to decide on policy recommendations. Lee felt they missed the point. “We were not there to make technical judgments, or necessarily come to a decision...[but] to reach agreement as to the way that the general public...would wish the research to proceed and, if necessary, be controlled.”

CONSENSUS CAN BE HARD, REWARDING WORK

By mid-afternoon the second day, they adjourned with massive amounts of information, reconvening in their hotel at 5 p.m. to write their report. This was a closed session, from which they kept even their facilitator.

Lee wrote: “None of us had any experience of how to conduct this part of the exercise and, for reasons of impartiality, we had been given very little guidance. We were given a deadline of midnight by which time we had to have our report ready for the printers.” It was not to be

Which is not to say they did not try hard. They elected Lee chair, and then made folders for each of the seven main questions they had asked the experts. Each person wrote down his or her thoughts on each question, which they filed in the folders. Then they separated into small groups, in order to have two or three panelists write a response to each question based on the notes in the folders. Afterward, they planned to circulate the responses to each panelist, “so that every panelist would have an opportunity to contribute to every section of the report.” They were still working in their small groups when they adjourned for dinner at 9 p.m.

The group found that the effort to make sure there were no disagreements was exceedingly time-consuming. When it became obvious they were not going to make their deadline, they began working through each question together as a group. As the second deadline passed in the wee hours of the morning, and still progress was slow, tempers began to fray. “But we all decided we were not going to fail at the final hurdle,” Lee wrote, considering it “no mean achievement” that no violence erupted from the lost tempers. “The word ‘consensus’ [took] on a whole new meaning for most of the panel...[T]here is nothing like finding yourself faced with a conflict of opinion at about two in the morning for testing the depth of conviction.”

At 5:30 in the morning – twelve sleepless hours after convening to seek consensus – they raced their report off to the printer and, after refreshing themselves and having breakfast, “appeared on the platform looking bright eyed, bushy tailed and totally in control” at ten o’clock. Their report arrived from the printer half an hour later. Various panelists delivered various parts of the report, various experts commented on it, and various audience questions were taken before the conference ended precisely at noon.

THEIR FINAL REPORT

In their report, the panel noted both potential benefits and potential risks of the technology (including ones demonstrated many years later, such as the transfer of genes into related crops and the emergence of resistant pests). They critically noted efforts by researchers and producers to “create a market for their products, instead of the market expressing a need or desire for the products” – as well as the inability of laboratory experiments to predict potential biotech disasters, particularly long-term effects. Among other things, the panel called for:

    • regulation and control of the technology, monitored by an independent ombudsman and international safety standards;

    • labeling genetically modified organisms in products;

    • controlled research in the public sector to maximize benefits to all;

    • support for plant biotech research specifically designed to benefit less developed countries, and the monitoring of multinational companies so they don’t disrupt local farmers and their crops, acknowledging the value of appropriate technology and sharing “the profits derived from the continued use of plants derived from the gene bank in the country of origin”;

    • more stringent monitoring of biotech patents and revision of patent law, since “the goalposts are being moved to the advantage of multinational companies”;

    • the use of consensus conferences as part of the parliamentary decision-making process in England, as it was in Denmark.

The report was widely reported in the media. Lee’s primary criticism of the process itself was that there was insufficient time for the panel to do as good a job as it wished. He recommended at least another preparatory weekend.

I can imagine not only having more time, but having subsequent consensus conferences on the same topic to (a) evaluate how well legislators were handling the issue in light of previous consensus conference recommendations, (b) identify problems in the regulatory process, and (c) make any new recommendations needed. Such an iterative process would allow the whole society to learn, over time, how to best deal with a complex and constantly changing issue such as biotechnology research.