 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
PUBLIC DEBATE STEERING BOARD NOTE OF MEETING BETWEEN PUBLIC DEBATE STEERING BOARD MEMBERS AND COI COMMUNICATIONS: 23 SEPTEMBER 2002Present Robin Grove-White (Steering board) Gary Kass (Steering board) Richard Abel (Steering board secretariat) Catherine Blizzard (COI Research) Christine Roberts (COI Research) Judith Brooke (COI Research) Humphrey Pring (COI Strategic Consultancy) Pete Board (COI Strategic Consultancy) Rosy Day (COI Strategic Consultancy) John Kelly (independent social researcher) Initial desk research 1. The purpose of the meeting, as agreed at the steering board meeting on 13 September, was to work with COI to develop the scope of the initial desk research exercise. 2. The purpose of the desk research exercise would be to assist with COI’s familiarisation with existing work on public attitudes to GM issues, focussing on the commercialisation of GM crops, and on deliberative techniques used in public engagement on this and similar issues, and so inform the programme of debate. 3. Judith Brooke introduced John Kelly, an independent social researcher from outside COI who had been brought in to undertake the desk research along with the COI’s own strategic consultancy service. It was agreed that Mr Kelly’s remit would be as follows: (i) Review of existing information about public attitudes in the UK to GM issues, focussing on GM crop commercialisation; and (ii) Review learning about relevant deliberative techniques used in public engagement exercises on similarly complex topics. 4. On the first aspect, it was noted that there needed to be a focus on GM crop commercialisation because the project would range too widely otherwise, and because possible GM crop commercialisation was the focus of the public debate. This was not to imply a reductive approach to the complex set of contextual factors influencing public attitudes – indeed these needed to be acknowledged and brought out in the research. Rather, it was to recognise the constraints of time on the exercise and so set priorities. 5. The rationale for this prioritisation in large part would be the need for COI and the Steering Board to be prepared for what was likely to come up in the debate - hence it made sense to look at public attitudes to possible commercialisation of GM crops primarily and related aspects of the use of GM as a second priority. The research, while focussing on the UK, should take account of information about UK public attitudes in the context of attitudes elsewhere in Europe and further abroad. Much of the research about attitudes to possible commercialisation was part of wider research projects on biotechnology applications. The strategic consultancy would look at: Examples of public engagement on GM and similarly complex topics in the UK and elsewhere. 6. The aim would be to explore the fragmented but rapidly evolving body of experience on deliberative methods and techniques on questions of this kind in the UK, other EU countries and further afield. This would help clarify the principles that underpinned these processes of engagement and to set the context for what could be done in the programme of debate and the principles that should underpin it. There was some potential overlap of the second aspect of Mr Kelly’s research with the strategic consultancy’s area of work. He and they would work together and monitor this to prevent duplication. 7. The steering board members suggested a number of academic papers and other material the research should cover. It was agreed that COI would draw up a list of the references mentioned at the meeting and gathered by them beforehand from the AEBC and other sources, and circulate it to Gary Kass and Robin Grove-White, copied to other steering board members, for advice on grouping the material in rough order of priority. In the meantime, work undertaken by the AEBC (which the secretariat would supply to COI); the recent PABE report; the Biotechnology 1996-2000: Years of Controversy collection; and the POST report Open Channels would be obvious material which the researchers could get on as soon as they were sourced before the full prioritised list was agreed. The research should pay attention, as would the whole programme of the debate, to any regional or national differences in the UK. Action: Humphrey Pring 8. Second, it was agreed that COI would hold a discussion workshop with academics and practitioners who could help inform both strands of the research, particularly on methods of deliberative engagement, and set the context for and the principles, which would underpin the planned programme. The steering board, through the secretariat, would approach Professor Steve Rayner, who had offered the assistance of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in bringing people together and sponsoring such a workshop. On the basis of the discussion at the meeting, the secretariat would draw up a list of possible attendees and a draft brief for the workshop, and then liaise with Professor Rayner to take forward the workshop. Some of the potential attendees would in addition or alternatively be good contacts for Mr Kelly and COI to seek references to papers or information about deliberative activities abroad. A number of the suggested names had assisted the AEBC sub-group in the workshop it had held earlier in the year to help develop its advice to Government. There was a lot of interest in and good will towards the debate exercise. Interested steering board members would also no doubt wish to come to the workshop. From COI, it would be useful if Simon Hughes as well as the research teams and Mr Kelly could attend. Action: Steering board secretariat 9. Robin Grove-White and Gary Kass offered their continued assistance to Mr Kelly and the COI researchers through the period of research. 10. COI assessed that the work would take 5-6 weeks after 2 weeks of preparation starting from 23 September i.e. completion by 8-15 November. The secretariat emphasised the need to press on with the research: the timescale for the whole programme was very tight. While appreciating that the researchers needed to do a thorough job, the steering board’s decisions about the rest of the programme ought to be informed by the initial research, and it would be much preferable if the whole board could have a discussion about the whole report in time to make the necessary decisions. It was agreed that if the steering board meeting and away day for the three strands took place on 28 October as presently planned, then the researchers would make a presentation of their interim findings then, with the full reports to follow, given COI’s assessment that the latter could not practicably be completed before 28 October. COI said they envisaged tendering for the next phases in parallel with the desk research exercise to speed progress. (Secretary’s note: the meeting and away day have now been rearranged from 28 October to 7 November and COI will assess the prospects for completing the research before the new date.) 11. The outputs from the desk research would be presented to the steering board, published, and made available to the science and economic strands to inform those exercises too. Mr Kelly would be identified as the author of his report. The future programme 12. In the discussion about how the research would inform the process of the steering board’s decision-making about how the programme of activities and events would proceed, it was noted that the steering board had agreed at its first meeting that the programme had to be deliberative and involve dialogue. This emphasis should underpin the initial desk research. 13. In this context, the characterisation in the AEBC’s April 2002 advice and in COI’s presentation of one part of the programme of debate as simply ‘focus groups’ or ‘qualitative research’ did not do justice to the steering board’s emphasis on dialogue and deliberation. This would be for discussion by the steering board and was all at a tentative stage; but considering that this phase would be designed to allow the public to frame the issues for the debate and also be used to help inform the later live events, this activity was about more than simply research into public attitudes. It would provide intelligent information about public attitudes; but it would be about more than a simple exercise in determining public views. Rather, these activities could be seen as deliberative exercises from which intelligent information about public attitudes would be sought, as people debated their views with others. It was agreed at the meeting that a name like ‘foundation discussion workshops’ rather than ‘focus groups’ would be a more informative title for these activities. In general, as had been made clear at the first steering board meeting, it was vital that COI took seriously the importance of portraying the process in open terms that brought out its deliberative nature and that there was no sense inadvertently given that the programme was about nothing more than carrying out a traditional ‘top down’ market research exercise. 14. It was agreed that discussion between the steering board and COI in a more informal workshop format as part of the 3 October steering board meeting would be very valuable in continuing to build a shared understanding between client and COI. In particular, a discussion about the constitution of the different aspects of the programme would be helpful, as would a further discussion about handling perceptions about the role of COI. On the latter, the COI team were seeking the views of Peter Buchanan, the chief executive of COI Communications and could see merit in principle in engaging with suspicious outsiders to explain how they COI saw its role in supporting the steering board. Steering board secretariat 24 September 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
