Even the most cursory review of recent regulatory disputes reveals problems in the way in which society manages the technical aspects of such controversies. In some cases, such as the acid rain controversy, the underlying technical or scientific conflict has been left unresolved; in other instances, the nature and source of the controversy, and the relationship between scientific knowledge and the final policy decisions have remained or become even more obscure.' Although resolution of technical controversies has been attempted (or suggested) in the United States through a variety of mechanisms-panels of the National Academy of Sciences, national commissions, consensus conferences, mediation efforts, the "science court"-none has really proved successful for long-term use.2 A group of experts asked to reach a technical consensus produces a vague report and leaves most major issues unresolved. A scientific body asked to resolve an issue is widely perceived as biased, and one or another of the disputants dismisses the report outright. Political actors, unwilling to take responsibility, sometimes ask technical bodies to resolve policy issues where significant ethical or value disagreements are central to any policy choice. In other instances, scientists refuse to be relegated to a purely technical role and propound policy conclusions that reflect their own nonscientific commitments. In many other cases, ad-
[1]
A. Tversky,et al.
The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
,
1981,
Science.
[2]
M. Yesley.
The use of an advisory commission.
,
1978,
Southern California law review.
[3]
I. Clark.
Expert advice in the controversy about supersonic transport in the United States
,
1974
.
[4]
Richard B. Stewart,et al.
The Reformation of American Administrative Law
,
1975,
The Political Economy.
[5]
Y Ezrahi,et al.
Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice
,
1980,
Minerva.
[6]
J T Kalberer,et al.
The NIH consensus-development program and the assessment of health-care technologies: the first two years.
,
1980,
The New England journal of medicine.
[7]
N. Wade.
Food board's fat report hits fire.
,
1980,
Science.
[8]
M. Roberts.
On the Nature and Condition of Social Science
,
1976
.
[9]
Richard Whitley,et al.
Components of Scientific Activities, Their Characteristics and Institutionalisation in Specialties and Research Areas: A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Scientific Developments
,
1975
.
[10]
Dorothy Nelkin,et al.
Science, technology, and the limits of judicial competence.
,
1981,
Science.