A policy question was posed in 2001 to Canadian publics: should Canada proceed with clinical trials on xenotransplantation and if so, under what conditions? As part of its development of policy and regulations on this medical technology, Health Canada and the Canadian Public Health Association implemented a public consultation process that included a public opinion survey and deliberative citizen fora modeled along the citizens' jury. This study focuses on the citizen fora and describes an assessment of effectiveness based on an evaluation framework developed on the basis of concepts from constructive technology assessment and deliberative democracy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
S. Joss , “Evaluating consensus conferences: necessity or luxury?” in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe eds., S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
2.
Health Canada, 2000. Press release. Ottawa, August 10.
3.
Health Canada, 2000.
4.
Expert Working Group on Xenotransplantation , Proposed Standards for Xenotransplantation (Ottawa, 1998).
5.
J. Volpe , Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation: A Canadian Approach. Report of the Standing Committee on Health (Ottawa: 1999).
6.
OECD Working Party on Biotechnology . OECD/WHO Consultation on Xenotransplantation Surveillance: Summary Report (Paris: 2001).
7.
The author was a member of this Public Advisory Group.
8.
Canadian Public Health Association , Animal-to-Human Transplantation: Should Canada Proceed? A Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation (Ottawa: 2001).
9.
The pilot study was conducted as part of a small research grant to the author and was carried out as a master's thesis. See J. Medlock, What's the Verdict? Evaluating a Citizens' Jury on Xenotransplantation. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, 2001. Research funds for this study were provided by the University Research Grants program.
10.
E. F. Einsiedel , “Citizen verdicts: public participation on xenotransplantation,” Forthcoming.
11.
N. Crosby , “Citizens' juries: one solution for difficult environmental questions,” in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, eds., O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1995).
12.
Crosby , “Citizens' juries.”
13.
This video called “Animal spare parts” appeared in 1999 on a weekly popular science program, The Nature of Things, hosted by well-known Canadian broadcaster and scientist, Dr. David Suzuki.
14.
The same facilitator was used for all six fora.
15.
Canadian Public Health Association , Animal-to-Human Transplantation.
16.
S. Joss and J. Durant, Public Participation in Science.
17.
Rowe and Frewer, “Public participation methods.”
18.
W. Sewell and S. Phillips, “Models for the evaluation of public participation programs,”Natural Resources Journal, 19 (1979): 337-358.
19.
A, Rip , T. Misa, and J. Schot, Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (London: Pinter, 1995).
20.
Rip , Misa, and Schot, Managing Technology in Society.
21.
J. Elster , Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1.
22.
J. Habermas , Theory of Communicative Action, vols. 1 and 2 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984).
23.
T. Webler , “Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick,” in Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse, eds., O. Renn, T. Webler, and P. Wiedemann (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1995).
24.
Medlock , What's the Verdict?
25.
Medlock , What's the Verdict?
26.
N. Kishchuk , An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation. Evaluation Report to the Canadian Public Health Association (Ottawa: 2002).
27.
The Jefferson Center has provided a budget range of $25,000 to $90,000, depending on such factors as geographic scope, number of participants, topic complexity, etc. We have picked the upper range because of the exploratory nature of this exercise, its inclusion of a national telephone survey, and a stakeholder mail survey. www.jefferson-center.org.
28.
Kishchuk , An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation.
29.
Kishchuk , An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 38.
30.
CPHA , Animal-to-Human Transplantation.
31.
These observations were made by some panelists interviewed for the evaluation. Kishchuk, An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 18.
32.
Kishchuk , An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation.
33.
Kishchuk , An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 19.
34.
Kishchuk , An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 23.
35.
Kishchuk , An Evaluation of the Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation, p. 23.
36.
J. Wright , “Alternative interpretations of the same data: flaws in the process of consulting the Canadian public about xenotransplantation issues,”Canadian Medical Association Journal, 167 (2002): 40-42.
37.
Internet stories were those covered by on-line news dissemination organizations such as www.canoe.ca.
38.
A. Glasmeier , “Consensus conferences, the media, and public information in the Netherlands,” in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, eds. S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
39.
S. Joss , “Evaluating consensus conferences: necessity or luxury?” in Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, eds. S. Joss and J. Durant (London: Science Museum, 1995).
40.
CPHA , Animal-to-Human Transplantation. p. v.
41.
Habermas , Theory of Communicative Action.
42.
B. Wynne , “Public consultation”. Presentation to Science and society: towards a democratic science. British Council, 10 October, 2000. www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/democraticscience.
43.
F. Bach , “Animal spare parts: xenotransplantation science, ethics, publics and policy,”American Association for the Advancement of Science Symposium, Boston, Feb. 17, 2002.
44.
also L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1978).
45.
G. Pask , Conversation, Cognition and Learning (New York: Elsevier, 1975).
46.
S. Tarrow , Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
47.
J. Schot . and A. Rip, “The past and future of constructive technology assessment,”Technological Forecasting and Social Change54, nos. 2 & 3 (1997): 251-268.
