This chapter critically evaluates the format of the Danish consensus conference as a participatory model in which a panel of citizens assesses a socially controversial issue related to science and technology. The outcome of this process is a consensus document intended to inform both decision-makers and the public. The chapter focuses on the Danish model of the consensus conference, where 12–16 individuals engage in two preparatory study weekends before participating in a final public conference involving stakeholders and policymakers as witnesses. Rather than being the result of a majority vote or negotiation, consensus in this model emerges through deliberation, where participants work toward a shared understanding and agreement. The chapter assesses the model’s strengths and limitations based on key criteria, including input, procedural, and outcome legitimacy; clarity and transparency; equal opportunity; effectiveness and impact; process design; constructive deliberation; participant capacity-building; clarity of purpose; closure determination; timing challenges; institutional commitment; knowledge claims; and resource requirements. The chapter provides insights into the practical and theoretical implications of consensus conferences for democratic deliberation.