Finally, in many contexts, it seems only reasonable that the underlying messiness of an institution’s deliberations should be concealed lest it lead to conflict and complications. For example, a jury should arguably deliberate outside the public eye. The National Academy of Sciences in the United States was recently burdened by the general requirement of public openness under the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act. Such openness would make it, in the view of many, virtually impossible to reach reasonable judgments about scientific matters of public importance that affect specific interests.

XREF: Connects to debates about transparency vs. effectiveness in governance, jury secrecy, and deliberative democracy theory.

Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, loc. 452