q 
polished, informed, and technically strong argument. Costly 
legal and scientific expertise is necessary to prepare and to 
effectively argue a easel 1 This may effectively subvert the 
"right" of participation. 
At this time, administrative priorities of efficiency 
and bureaucratic autonomy cast doubts on any real commitment 
to participation. Participatory mechanisms are directed more 
towards creating public support than towards changing the bal- 
ance of existing authority — more towards creating informed con- 
sent than towards expanding democratic choice. Often, the pro- 
cedures detour into paperwork--hardly a reasonable substitute 
for genuine involvement. 
However, the participatory impulse continues to place de- 
mands on administrative institutions. New mechanisms to broaden 
public involvement and to bring new groups into the decision- 
making process have multiplied. In the U.S. these have included 
citizen juries and various mediation techniques. In Europe, 
efforts to foster greater acceptance of science and technology 
through expanded public involvement include the Windscale pub- 
lic inquiry in England, the extension of the Study Circle con- 
cept in Sweden, public debates on nuclear power in Austria, re- 
forms of local public inquiry procedures in France, and the 
early publication and dissemination of "policy intentions" in 
Holland . 12 
As governments grope for ways to meet demands for greater 
public involvement, genuinely difficult questions remain. Who 
should be involved in major policy decisions concerning science? 
How can those effected by policy choices be properly informed 
in complex ethical areas so that they can effectively and re- 
sponsibly participate? Can we increase public participation 
without seriously obstructing important areas of scientific 
advance? Given the erosion of trust in our society, it is 
[A-118] 
