This paper reprises the post-modernist argument that giving voice to all citizens by forcibly seeking a consensus single view of philosophy,vision,and values under cooperative relationships(where good relationships are egalitarian and socialist)improves social welfare more effectively than the competitive relationships(where bad relationships are free and combative)traditionally found in democracy when seeking the truth among differing visions with common sense and scientific evidence.Specifically, Department of Energy Environmental Management’s(DOE-EM)policy for its Citizen Site Specific Advisory Boards encourages its Boards“to work toward consensus”in order to be“fair”.The recent DOE Evaluation Team leader(Bradbury)justified the use of consensus decision-making as an improvement in the majority-rule decision-making used in American democracy.But although she described the Citizen Boards across the DOE complex as a“grand field experiment”,no empirical evidence was collected from the field by the DOE Evaluation Team to validate its belief that consensus seeking produces more effective and fairer decisions.Nor is there field data to indicate that consensus decisions accelerate the cleanup of DOE sites.In contrast,experimental evidence in the social science literature and available field data contradict DOE’s policy on consensus decision-making—consensus seeking retards the cleanup;the cooperative(“good”)relationships necessary to seek consensus require coercion,reducing trust;and the competition of ideas driven by majority-rule markedly improves decisions.Thus,if citizens in any way contribute to the cleanup across the DOE complex,DOE ought to use independent scientific peer review(ISPR)to validate its policy to optimize the contributions of citizens working to accelerate the DOE cleanup.Otherwise,DOE’s policy serves to promote antiscientific views,misperceptions of risk,and an uneducated citizenry regarding its nuclear mission and the DOE cleanup.
展开▼
