While there has been research conducted on public views about ethical and social aspects of the National DNA Database (NDNAD), there is little which focuses on views of young people, in particular those whose details are held on the NDNAD. We describe an engagement activity developed in South Wales to engage young offenders with ethical and social issues surrounding the NDNAD – a Mock Trial – and how we facilitated the presentation of their views to policy makers. We discuss the successes and challenges we encountered with engaging young offenders, decisions that the young people reached about possible future policies for the NDNAD at the Mock Trial, and their contribution to the decision-making process.
AndersenI.-E.JaegerB. (1999) “Danish Participatory Models. Scenario Workshops and Consensus Conferences: Towards more Democratic Decision-making,” Science and Public Policy26(5): 331–40.
3.
Barnardo’s (2005) A Better Start in Life: Annual Report 2005. Ilford: Barnardo’s.
4.
BoonT. (2006) “A Historical Perspective on Science Engagement,” in TurneyJ. (ed.) Engaging Science: Thoughts, Deeds, Analysis and Action, pp. 8–9. London: The Wellcome Trust.
5.
City of Edinburgh Council (2008) Summary Research Findings of the Views of Young People Living in Edinburgh. Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh.
6.
CollinsH.M.EvansR. (2003) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience,” Social Studies of Science32: 235–96.
7.
CooteA.LenaghanJ. (1997) Citizens’ Juries: Theory into Practice. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
8.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Working Together: Listening to the Voices of Children and Young People. London: Department for Children, Schools and Family.
9.
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Review of the UK Youth Parliament. London: Department for Education and Skills.
10.
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills & Research Councils UK (2008) “A Vision for Science and Society.” July.
11.
EinsiedelE.F.EastlickD.L. (2000) “Consensus Conferences as Deliberative Democracy: A Communications Perspective,” Science Communication21(4): 323–43.
12.
FaulknerK.M. (2009) “Presentation and Representation: Youth Participation in Ongoing Public Decision-making Projects,” Childhood16: 89–104.
13.
Food Standards Agency (2003) The Food Standards Agency’s Contribution to the Public Dialogue: Consumer Views of GM Food. London: Food Standards Agency.
14.
Funky Dragon: The Children and Young People’s Assembly for Wales (2009) URL: www.funkydragon.org
15.
Genetics Forum (1999) “Citizen Foresight: A Tool to Enhance Democratic Policy Making.” Genetics Forum and University of East London.
16.
GeneWatch UK (2003) “UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework: GeneWatch Comments,” 24October. Buxton: GeneWatch UK.
17.
GoldschmidtR.RennO. (2006) “Meeting of Minds: European Citizens’ Deliberation on Brain Sciences.” University of Stuttgart, Germany.
18.
GovenJ. (2003) “Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and De-problematization,” Public Understanding of Science12(4): 423–40.
19.
HamstraA. (1995) “The Role of the Public in Instruments of Constructive Technology Assessment,” in JossS.DurantJ. (eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe, pp. 53–66. London: Science Museum.
20.
Home Office (2009) “Government Outlines New Proposals for DNA Database,” Press release, 7May.
21.
House of Lords (2000) “Science and Society: Select Committee on Science and Technology.” HL Paper 38. London: The Stationery Office.
22.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2003) Sex Selection: Choice and Responsibility in Human Reproduction. London: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
23.
Human Genetics Commission (2001) Public Attitudes to Human Genetic Information. London: Human Genetics Commission.
24.
Human Genetics Commission (2007) “HGC Welcomes Report on Forensic Use of DNA,” Press release, 19September.
25.
Human Genetics Commission (2008a) “HGC Citizens’ Inquiry into Forensic Use of DNA Gets Underway,” Press release, 9January.
26.
Human Genetics Commission (2008b) A Citizens’ Inquiry into the Forensic Use of DNA and the National DNA Database: Evaluation Report. London: Human Genetics Commission.
27.
Human Genetics Commission (2008c) A Citizens’ Inquiry into the Forensic Use of DNA and the National DNA Database: Citizens’ Report. London: Human Genetics Commission.
28.
IredaleR.AndersonC.ShawA.M. (2009) The National DNA Database on Trial: Project Report. University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd.
29.
IredaleR.LongleyM.ThomasC.ShawA.M. (2006) “What Choices Should We Be Able to Make about Designer Babies? A Citizens’ Jury of Young People in South Wales,” Health Expectations9: 207–17.
KerrA. (2003) “Rights and Responsibilities in the New Genetics Era,” Critical Social Policy23: 208–26.
32.
LevittM. (2007) “Forensic Databases: Benefits and Ethical and Social Costs,” British Medical Bulletin83: 235–48.
33.
MayerI.GuertsJ. (1999) “Consensus Conferences as Participatory Policy Analysis: A Methodological Contribution to the Social Management of Technology,” in WhealeP.von SchomburgR.GlasnerP. (eds) The Social Management of Genetic Engineering, pp. 279–301. Aldershot: Ashgate.
34.
National Children’s Bureau (2005) Report and Financial Statements: Year Ended 31st March 2005. London: National Children’s Bureau.
National Police Improving Agency (2006) The National DNA Database Annual Report 2006. London: National Police Improving Agency.
37.
National Youth Agency (2005) Showing Respect for Young People: Annual Report 2004–5. Leicester: National Youth Agency.
38.
Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) (2001) Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, National Archives.
39.
Office of Public Sector Information (2003) Criminal Justice Act 2003, National Archives.
40.
PetersenA. (2007) “BioBanks’ ‘Engagement’: Endangering Trust or Engineering Consent?,” Genomics, Society and Policy3(1): 31–43.
41.
Policy Ethics And Life Sciences Research Institute (PEALS) (2003) The People’s Report on GM Crops. Newcastle: PEALS, University of Newcastle.
42.
PuriB.K.LambertM.T.CordessC.C. (1996) “Characteristics of Young Offenders Detained under Section 53(2) at a Young Offenders’ Institution,” Medicine, Science and the Law36(1): 69–76.
43.
PutninsA.L. (1999) “Literacy, Numeracy and Non-verbal Reasoning Skills of South Australian Young Offenders,” Australian Journal of Education43(2): 157–71.
44.
Research Councils UK (2002) Dialogue with the Public: Practical Guidelines. London: RCUK.
45.
RichardsM. (1996) “Lay and Professional Knowledge of Genetics and Inheritance,” Public Understanding of Science5(3): 217–30.
46.
StackhouseR.AndersonC.ShawA.IredaleR. (2010) “Avoiding the Usual Suspects: Young People’s Views of the National DNA Database,” New Genetics and Society29(2): 149–66.
47.
StaleyK. (2005) The Police National DNA Database: Balancing Crime Detection, Human Rights and Privacy. A Report by GeneWatch UK. Buxton: GeneWatch UK.
ThomasG.DurantJ. (1987) “Why Should We Promote the Public Understanding of Science?,” Scientific Literary Papers1: 1–14.
51.
UK Youth Parliament (2009) “Manifesto.” London: UK Youth Parliament.
52.
VandenabeeleJ.GoordenL. (2004) “Consensus Conference on Genetic Testing: Citizenship and Technology,” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology14(3): 207–13.
53.
WakefordT. (2002) “Citizens’ Juries: A Radical Alternative for Social Research,” Social Research UpdateIssue 37.
54.
WallaceH. (2006) “The UK National DNA Database: Balancing Crime Detection, Human Rights and Privacy,” European Molecular Biology Organization Reports: Science and Society7(S1): S26–S30.
55.
WeldonS. (2004) Public Engagement in Genetics: A Review of Current Practice in the UK. A Report for NOWGEN. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
56.
WIHSC (1997) Citizens’ Jury on Genetic Testing for Common Disorders. University of Glamorgan, Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care.
57.
WilliamsR.JohnsonP. (2005) “Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Intrusiveness: Issues in the Developing Uses of DNA Profiling in Support of Criminal Investigations,” Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics33: 545–58.
58.
WilsdonJ.WillisR. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream. London: DEMOS.
