The final conference of the procedure had two functions. It was to bring to the fore the political problems of HR technology which had not been discussed so much up to then. It was also to do what the evaluation conferences had not done, namely to draw conclusions about the factual findings of the TA studies.
The evaluation and assessment of actions are viewed as political problems. For instance, should HR technology be registered, banned, promoted? Are the risks of transgenic plants acceptable? Where does the burden of proof lie for unknown risks?
Should new technologies be regulated in a different manner from old ones? Is an improvement in chemical weed control an advantage? etc. In the design of the TA procedure these questions were separated from information issues and subordinated to them in temporal and logical terms.
This sequence could scarcely be avoided given that TA is the examination and evalu
ation of the possible consequences of a technology. Before we ask whether a risk is acceptable we have to ask whether the risk exists. The question, for instance, whether we should accept the risk that transgenic HR plants might grow wild and
15 A distinction applied in procedural justice research; see Lind/Tylor (1988). According to this research, preferences for procedures seem to be more influenced by process-related variables (process control/voice) than by result-related variables (decision control).
establish themselves in natural eco-systems can only be dealt with appropriately if, prior to this, we have determined whether this process is at all possible, how likely it is and what the worst possible consequences could be. In the procedure, therefore, an attempt had first to be made to formulate the results of the "taking of evidence" which had become bogged down in the evaluation conferences. Of course, here, it could be that it is not possible to clarify the facts and that answers to empirical questions remain controversial. But this finding, too, had first to be recorded before any con
clusions could be drawn.
The WZB working group was assigned the task, by way of preparation for the final conference, of summarizing the findings of the discussions so far of the issues con
sidered. The summary had to be complete and clearly document the various positions of those concerned.
There were arguments in the working group about the method to be used. It was gen
erally agreed that first of all an overview should be established of all the arguments advanced in the procedure (in the expert reports, in the commentaries and discus
sions). To this end, argument trees were developed for the various areas in the pro
cedure in which, for each question, statements for and against were set against each other in blocks. What was controversial was whether this was to be carried further and the arguments classified according to their contents, i.e. reconstructed as a sequence of claims, counter claims, substantiation, objections, counter objections, etc.
The argument advanced against reconstruction of this kind was that it would contain hidden assessments. It would introduce into the statements of the participants nuances which may not have been intended by them at all. The argument advanced in favour of a reconstruction of this kind was that only this would truly reflect the course of the procedure. The block apposition of arguments would merely stress the divergent nature of the positions. The participants had, however, also produced convergence between these positions.
In fact the participants did not merely express and clarify their opinions. They con
tinuously argued with each other (i.e. against each other). The procedure prompted discursive communication: in the actual dialogue substantiation was requested and provided, objections raised and countered, evidence offered and examined. Hence, communication in the procedure differed greatly from the normal discussions in public political circles, which frequently do not move beyond the repeated exchange of announcements of positions. When people engage in discursive negotiations then, to a certain extent, they must open their positions to debate. In discourse no one has the
fate of his arguments completely in his own hands. Arguments have a life of their own. They may run contrary to their intention. What results after discourse as "the state of argumentation" can be far more than the simple collection of all the contro
versial positions defended by the various parties. Whether the TA procedure has led to results along these lines also had to be determined. For that reason the WZB working group decided to reconstruct the arguments in the procedure into controver
sial strategic positions (main statements) and to add this reconstruction to the docu
mentation for the final conference. Whether the working group did this in an arbi
trary manner is something which had to be examined by the participants who had an opportunity to oppose the reconstruction.
Even when one has summarized and classified everything which has been said about an issue, what is missing are the conclusions as to what the results are. Thus, the reconstruction of arguments still does not supply the results of the taking of evidence either. However, it does make the next step up to the result transparent and compre
hensible. This step is not a logical derivation which could be left to the computer. It is an act of cognitive evaluation which must weigh-up the arguments advanced. Here there may be variations in evaluation. But these are subject to two major conditions:
(1) no new arguments may be added; (2) no assessment should be made of whether something is politically desirable or defendable but whether, to use the words of Wittgenstein, it actually is the case. Has the claim been proven? Has the objection been refuted? Is the hypothesis substantiated? Is this a scientific controversy? The conclusions are cognitive evaluations, not political or moral ones.
Conclusions of these kinds were formulated by the organizers of the TA procedure and presented to the other participants for the final conference. In this respect, the organizers fulfilled a requirement of the Coordinating Committee to present a draft on how they want to come to conclusions in the final report on the TA procedure. The conclusions presented were described as provisional and as offers to the participants to provide details on the consensus or dissent.
This procedure placed the participants under massive pressure either to admit consen
sus or justify dissent. That was criticized. However, pressure for consensus was only exerted in respect of the empirical findings which were of constitutive relevance for the problems of HR technology. The overall TA procedure was based on the premise that judgements in this area are neither arbitrary nor just a matter of interest. If one were of the opinion that conclusions from the arguments advanced during the procedure were arbitrary and that depending on the interests represented the opposite
result could emerge, any attempt at "taking of evidence" about the problems of HR technology would be senseless from the beginning. Then, of course, one would also have to stop presenting any arguments about the HR technology to the general public as scientifically substantiated.
Pressure for consensus does not mean that at all costs there must be a result and that this has to be accepted without opposition. It means that findings can only be rejected with a growing burden of substantiation. One cannot simply decide to be of a differ
ent opinion for the sake of it. One is free to reject interests and goals which one can select but not factual contents which one can (at least in principle) recognize. The true domain of dissent is politics. In respect of the political evaluation of HR tech
nology and the resulting options for action, efforts were made in the procedure not to close but to open opportunities for interpretation.