Scientific research related to the use of experts in decision making processes highlights the emergence of vast criticism, but what specifically are experts blamed for? Symptoms of the expertise crisis are varied and can be understood through broader questioning of the rational decision making paradigm which supposes that good science provided by experts leads to good decisions. As a response to this problem, many proposals for a new relationship between citizens, experts and politics have been made. However, these proposals are often based on pre-established definitions of the role of science and experts in decision making. Therefore, we suggest changing perspective by exploring stakeholders’ perception of experts in the controversial highway 25 extension project in the region of Montreal. A lexicometric analysis of the different briefs provided by public hearing participants was undertaken in order to uncover participants’ perception of appointed experts and of the impacts and issues related to the project. The project was presented by the Ministère des Transports du Québec in 2005 and public hearings were held by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement. In this specific context, the expertise crisis appears to be a plea for more opened and democratic procedures as well as a more reflexive practice of science. These findings underline the need for a closer examination of the procedures that govern the use of experts in order to improve them.