Dissensus, Unclosure, and Agonistic Appraisal: Reconceiving of Technology Assessment and Consensus Conferences as Forms of Social Experimentation

In this paper, I inquire into two public deliberative formats that aim to render scientific and technological practices more socially robust: the consensus conference and participatory technology assessment (pTA). Drawing on experiences in the US National Institute of Health Consensus Conferences and in a Flemish pTA on nanotechnologies, I make explicit how these formats enact a strong appeal to consensus; thereby delegitimizing conflict and disagreement among deliberating parties. By perceiving of these formats as social experiments that typically elicit undecided procedures and tentative, “unclosed” outputs, it is possible to: (a) pinpoint how conflict pervades deliberative engagements in science and technology, and (b) revalue conflict dynamics as a useful heuristic that encourages (rather than hampers) the expression of disagreement. I argue that deliberately seeking out conflict in deliberation is both morally responsible and epsitemically fruitful, as it obliges participants to refine their worldviews in confrontation with competing truth claims and enables them to articulate their personal or group needs. To further develop these lines of reasoning, I propose three conceptions that contrast with the consensus ideal: dissensus, unclosure, and (ant)agonistic learning. I conclude by offering suggestions on how to build critical reflection about the ethical, political, and epistemic implications of social experimentation into processes of science and technology governance.