I'll offer a few comments on that.
First, I'll just maybe clarify that our policy on consensus appears on our departmental website. We define “consensus” as “absence of evidence-based opposition”. It's not enough to disagree. There needs to be evidence that's brought forward to support the point of view that's being made at the meeting itself. However, to your point about opposing views, there's also, at the discretion of the chair, the ability in our policies to make note of perspectives or issues that did not arrive at consensus. That isn't at odds with the policies we currently have. I agree that it's something we could make use of more often.
To the point you made around massaging information, I'd like to challenge that interpretation and say that it's very important we look at peer-reviewed information as it becomes available. In places where a field of study is new and emerging, it's more likely we'll have areas of healthy debate, a different point of view, and that makes it very important that we go back and revisit that information and monitor new papers that are being published. It makes it very important that we have a very diverse perspective of experts around the table. As things change, as new papers are published and subjected to peer review, we'll revisit the advice we've given to inform decision-making.