This paper presents the results of the first two surveys conducted using the innovative NERD (Norms Evolving in Response to Dilemmas) platform. The structure, results, and analysis of the first two NERD surveys on genomics and human health and salmon genomics are compared. This comparison demonstrates that NERD is a cost-effective and efficient public consultation and experimental tool that has provided insight on public acceptance of new technologies such as genomics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahmad, R., Bornik, Z., Danielson, P., Dowlatabadi, H., Levy, E., Longstaff, H. and Wilkin, J. ( 2006) "A Web-based Instrument to Model Social Norms: NERD Design and Results," Journal of Integrated Assessment6(2): 9-36.
2.
Burgess, M. and Tansey, J. ( 2006) "Complexity of Public Interest in Ethical Analysis of Genomics: Ethical Reflections on Salmon Genomics/Aquaculture," Journal of Integrative Assessment6(2): 37-57.
3.
Carr, D. and Halvorsen, K. ( 2001) "An Evaluation of Three Democratic, Community-based Approaches to Citizen Participation: Surveys, Conversations with Community Groups, and Community Dinners," Society and Natural Resources14: 107-26.
4.
Castle, D., Finlay, K. and Clark, S. ( 2005) "Proactive Consumer Consultation: The Effect of Information Provision on Response to Transgenic Animals," Journal of Public Affairs5: 200-16.
5.
Chess, C. ( 2000) "Evaluating Environmental Public Participation: Methodological Questions," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management43: 769-84.
6.
Danielson, P., Ahmad, R., Bornik, Z., Dowlatabadi, H. and Levy, E. ( 2007) "Deep, Cheap, and Improvable: Dynamic Democratic Norms and the Ethics of Biotechnology," in F. Adams (ed.) Ethics and the Life Sciences. Special Conference Supplement, Journal of Philosophical Research. Charlottesville, VA: PDC Press.
7.
Davison, A., Barns, I. and Schibeci, R. ( 1997) "Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology," Science, Technology, and Human Values22: 317-48.
8.
Fishkin, J. ( 2000) "Virtual Democratic Possibilities: Prospects for Internet Democracy," The Center for Deliberative Democracy, Department of Communication at Stanford University. URL: http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2000/brazilpaper.pdf (accessed November 2005).
9.
Miah, A. ( 2005) "Genetics, Cyberspace and Bioethics: Why Not a Public Engagement with Ethics?," Public Understanding of Science14: 409-21.
10.
Pellizzoni, L. ( 2003) "Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy," Environmental Values12: 195-224.
11.
Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J. and O’Riordan, T. ( 2005) "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis25: 467-79.
12.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. ( 2000) "Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation ," Science, Technology, and Human Values25: 3-29.
13.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. ( 2004) "Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda," Science, Technology, and Human Values29: 512-56.
14.
Sanderson, S., Wardle, J. and Michie, S. ( 2005) "The Effects of a Genetic Information Leaflet on Public Attitudes towards Genetic Testing," Public Understanding of Science14: 213-24.
15.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. ( 1981) "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice ," Science211: 453-8.
