biotechnology commission (AEBC)

	Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC)
	Sub Groups

		Home

		About us

		Reports

		Meetings

		Sub groups

		Contact us

		Site map

PUBLIC ATTITUDES GROUP MEETING
4 APRIL 2002
ROOM 402
1 VICTORIA STREET
LONDON SW1H 0ET

MINUTES

Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission

Present

Professor Robin Grove-White (Convener)
Ms Judith Hann

Secretariat

Mr Richard Abel
Pat Wilson

Also present

Dr Simon Joss - Westminster University
Professor Alan Irwin - Brunel University

1. This was a special meeting to hear from Dr Joss and Professor Irwin who had both had experience of "public debate" exercises in recent years - Professor Irwin in this country and Dr Joss here and with the Council of Europe and in Switzerland and Germany. Both broadly approved of the sub-group's plans as set out in the draft advice to Government which the Secretariat had prepared and sent to Professor Irwin and Dr Joss in advance of the meeting. They noted that it was an ambitious programme; but that the approach set out by the sub-group showed how much things have moved forward in the past decade in terms of public engagement on science and society issues.

2. They stressed that it was essential for any public debate programme to have clear and specific objectives and to be realistic about the issues it was presenting and the questions being asked. A particular problem could occur with quantitative analysis where long and complicated questions were presented to people unprepared to answer them: "Making up the answers on the doorstep can give the Government the statistics it wants but it is seldom helpful". Giving people being questioned time to think about the issues produced much more valuable results. The AEBC's proposed qualitative approach to the analysis of public views was the right one.

3. Dr Joss spoke of experiences with "public debate" exercises in his native Switzerland and in Germany. There would inevitably be some cynicism from parts of the public and even from the politicians themselves. People would question whether the exercise was simply a device to win them over to some new development or whether it was a genuine attempt to stimulate and measure their views.

4. One needed to spell out what the subjective term 'debate' meant in this context. The exercise proposed by the AEBC included an assessment of the contributions made by participants in organised events; and also some suggestion that there would be value in promoting more uncontrolled, spontaneous discussion of the issues in wider society. And what exactly did 'genuine' and 'effective' mean in this context? Professor Irwin pointed out that in exercises of this sort inevitable some groups and individuals would complain about being excluded and one needed to brace oneself for this.

5. Both Dr Joss and Professor Irwin argued that Government’s role was crucial. The debate exercise as part of the democratic process and at arm’s length from Government but, at the same time, there needed to be a commitment from Government giving its full support and an undertaking that its results would be taken very seriously before decisions were made in order to counter cynicism. Such a commitment might also have the merit of putting some pressure on campaigning organisations to take the exercise seriously. For a number of reasons Ministers would want to keep out of the firing line but they had to be prepared to endorse the operation and make it clear what they intended to do with the evidence provided about public views.

6. They suggested that there should be a national event (possibly with a major press conference) after the regional exercises - and before the final evaluation procedure and the writing up of the report.

7. Additional points and suggestions included:

It was quite possible that mass media coverage of the issues being discussed would blow up or escalate during the debate process and the AEBC needed to be prepared for this and ready to adapt its plans to events;
There was a need for a strong project management team to manage the exercise working closely with the Steering Board It should be constituted in such a way as to command public respect. Responsibilities for resolving any difficulties as they arose with the programme should be understood clearly at the outset
Production of the final report to Government would be a crucial task. To ensure the report was a proper reflection of the debate and to guard against bias there was a case for the Steering Board to approve or comment on the final version before publication;.
There was a case for filming some of the actual interview procedures/discussions for later use. They could be provided as a kind of "storyboard" for Ministers when they considered the final evaluation report;
It might be fruitful to include both school students and adults in the initial groups which would frame the issues for debate;
At the end of the organised programme of events above, there might be merit in providing modest financial assistance to local community or ad hoc groups to use the results of the debate (as has been done in Denmark). People would be assisted to pursue their own ideas for local events and debates about the issues raised. to bringing together other elements from the debate. This would provide a bottom-up element to the debate and could be part of more general efforts to improve participation in democratic debate;

8. Robin Grove-White thanked Professor Irwin and Dr Joss warmly for sharing their insights with the sub-group.

AEBC Secretariat
April 2002

Sub Groups