Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (14)
Similar to Public dialogue power point presentation (ccc & mr)
Similar to Public dialogue power point presentation (ccc & mr) (20)
More from InvolveFoundation
More from InvolveFoundation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Public dialogue power point presentation (ccc & mr)
- 1. Introducing public dialogue Amy Pollard Dialogue Manager, Sciencewise Josephine Suherman-Bailey Policy Analyst, Sciencewise Robin Clarke Dialogue and Engagement Specialist, Sciencewise
- 2. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk About this session (1hr 30 mins) • Introduction to public dialogue • Real life case studies • Routes to further support • Questions and discussion 2
- 4. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk 4 What proportion of human genetic material would give a transgenic goat human rights? A) It should never have human rights B) 25% C) 51% D) 75% E) 100%
- 5. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk What is public dialogue? A process of engagement that brings together members of the public, policy makers and experts • To discuss in depth, and where possible reach conclusions about a particular issue. • To highlight the social, ethical and practical issues raised by up-coming policies. • To make more robust decisions reflecting (rather than at odds with) public values. 5
- 7. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk 7 The engagement spectrum
- 8. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Decide Announce Defend vs Engage Deliberate Decide
- 9. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Costs of decisions For simple, uncontroversial issues, a narrow engagement may be cost effective
- 10. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Costs of decisions But for complex, controversial issues, an upfront investment in more substantive engagement avoids much greater costs of conflict.
- 12. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk What does it mean in practice? • Bringing together ‘the whole system in the room’ – the public, experts and policy makers • Independent facilitators • Clear expectations of the extent of public influence (informing but not deciding) • An informed discussion • Often meeting more than once, allowing time for reflection • Evaluation afterwards 12
- 13. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Impact on policy • Opens up potential for movement on controversial areas of policy • Delivers significant cost savings • Increases responsiveness and accountability of policy • Supports behaviour change 13
- 16. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Josephine Suherman-Bailey Policy Analyst, Sciencewise Case Study for Public Dialogue – Carbon emissions 16
- 17. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk 17 Case Study – Carbon emissions The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) is an independent statutory body under the Climate Change Act 2008. Under the Act, the CCC is required to have ‘regard to the desirability of involving the public in the exercise of its functions’. The public dialogue project was set up to feed into development of the Committee’s advice to government as part of setting the Fourth Carbon Budget. 17
- 18. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk 18 Carbon emissions - the challenges The Committee on Climate Change needed to develop an idea of the public’s understanding of and views towards the role of the UK government in addressing the global climate change challenge, and of how different actions could affect the UK in terms of energy bills, price changes, economic costs and competitiveness. 18
- 19. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Public Dialogue – Sciencewise’s Role Commissioning body: Committee on Climate Change (CCC) Duration of process: the dialogue process took place within a six-week time period in September October 2013, with the public involved over a 4 day period Total public participants involved: 25 Total stakeholders involved: 8 19
- 20. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Public Dialogue – Aims and Objectives 20 • What is the public understanding of the risks of climate change? • What is the UK’s role and responsibility? • What is the public’s understanding of and attitudes to impacts of UK action on energy bills? • What is the public’s understanding of, and attitudes towards, the wider implications of UK action? • Does the public think the case for UK action has changed significantly since the 4th Carbon Budget was legislated in June 2011? To help the CCC understand the views of the public to inform its review of the Government’s 4th Carbon Budget.
- 21. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk How did we involve the public? (1) 21 The public dialogue took the form of three panel discussions held in London over a four-day period in October 2013 with the same 25 members of the public attending each event. The first two events were in the evening and the final event was on a Saturday. Each event lasted between 3 and 3½ hours. The whole dialogue process, including preparation of materials, took place within a six-week timescale. The design for the public dialogue adopted elements of the Citizen’s Jury model.
- 22. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk How did we involve the public? (2) 22 The dialogue participants formed a panel that was supported through several stages of work to enable deep engagement with the issues. This started by exploring the context of carbon emission reductions and moved on to making recommendations to the CCC. Before the first event, public participants were provided with four short think pieces to introduce them to the challenges of the issues before they considered them in the face-to- face sessions
- 23. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Key messages from public dialogue 20 Attendees made the following recommendations to the CCC: • Greater public debate and engagement on the sorts of measures the Committee is considering in the 4th Carbon Budget review • Education at all levels on climate change and carbon emission reductions • Acting now by investing in safe, renewable energy sources • Incentivising positive contributions by individuals and business in the form of grants and tax breaks • Keeping data up to date and using current data to inform policy advice • The issue of climate change is too important to be swayed by party politics and independent advice followed by legislation, as necessary, is essential. “A simple education [programme] to explain to us how climate change will actually affect our lives in England and then worldwide.” Public participant
- 24. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Impact and Influence (1) - The outcomes of the public dialogue influenced the second part of the CCC’s formal advice to the Government on the 4th Carbon Budget, which was published in December 2013. - The dialogue is referenced in the CCC’s main advice to Government, while the panel’s six key recommendations are outlined in full in a supporting Technical Report. 24
- 25. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Impact and Influence (2) 25 • The public voiced strong support for the UK taking an international leadership role in this field • The dialogue helped to identify specific technologies that the public were comfortable with and supportive of (e.g. heat pumps) and those that they were less enthusiastic about (e.g. Carbon Capture and Storage); this gave the CCC “pause for thought” on supporting specific technologies themselves
- 26. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Impact and Influence (3) Policy maker view “The dialogue demonstrated that members of the public were keen to engage on issues around climate change, and in particular on the means and costs of meeting the UK’s carbon budgets. They were supportive of UK leadership, as well as providing insights on specific measures. It was reassuring that, in general, they understood and supported the CCC’s emerging narrative on emissions reduction for the fourth carbon budget…. It has raised the question for us about whether we should be doing more on behaviour change and factoring this into our analyses and projections.” CCC interviewee 26
- 27. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Mitochondria replacement: A public dialogue case study Robin Clarke Dialogue and Engagement Specialist, Sciencewise
- 28. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk “to seek public views on emerging IVF-based techniques to prevent the transmission of mitochondrial disease,” with support from Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre Conduct a public dialogue exercise to explore: • The ethical aspects and issues involved in techniques to avoid mitochondrial disease; and • The practical implications of allowing such techniques within regulation Regulations would need to be passed in both houses of Parliament Mitochondria replacement: What the government asked HFEA to do?
- 29. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk What is mitochondria replacement? Mitochondrial disease caused by faults in the small amount of DNA in the mitochondria, inherited from the mother •Pronuclear transfer & maternal spindle transfer: transfer nuclear material from an egg/embryo containing unhealthy mitochondria to a healthy donor egg/embryo. •DNA from parents and a donor •These techniques, which are referred to as mitochondria replacement, are illegal in treatment in the UK.
- 30. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Mitochondria replacement: hopes & concerns • Estimated 1 in 5,000 people affected by mitochondrial disease, around 1 in 6,500 children thought to develop serious mitochondrial disorder. • Range of conditions linked to mitochondrial disease – from mild to life threatening – no known cure or treatment. Hopes? …for women with mitochondrial disease who want children genetically related to them without passing on disease. Concerns?... “3 parent babies”; akin to cloning, genetic modification of humans; interfering with natural or spiritual aspects of reproduction… 30
- 31. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Aim of the dialogue & consultation To identify: • The process of deliberation people use to form views on mitochondria replacement • The differences between informed and uninformed public views on these techniques • Interested stakeholders’ arguments for and against the use of the techniques • Analysis of the ethical and regulatory issues involved. 31
- 32. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Multi-method approach 32 Selected public audiences (“uninformed”) •Public representative survey – 1000 face to face interviews/ “top of head” views with little information •3 sets of deliberative public workshops (met twice) – 90 participants in total. • Scientists & Bio-ethicist specialist input • Videos, posters, quizzes, info sheets, presentations & questions Self-Selecting/ Interested audiences (“informed”) •Open consultation website & questionnaire •2 x Open public consultation meetings •Patient focus group – those affected by mitochondrial disease
- 33. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Key messages from deliberative workshops Broadly agreed support for the new techniques with caveats and conditions: • Individual parent choice • Provision of information to make an informed choice • Regulated environment • Parents should be offered counselling • Donor’s identity should be protected – though maybe some information to the child? • Fair access to the techniques – available on NHS free of charge • Only to produce a healthy child, no other purpose 33
- 34. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Impact & Influence • A total of 3,004 public and stakeholder participants involved: • 1,069 public participants - 90 in deliberative workshops plus 979 in poll survey; • 1935 stakeholders - 7 in focus group, 92 in open meetings and 1,836 responses to the open consultation questionnaire. • Led to direct policy influence, outputs integrated into the HFEA process to develop recommendations to Government • Enabled promotion of new legislation (draft regulation for consultation – earlier this year) to allow and regulate the use mitochondria replacement techniques, by demonstrating public support in principle, and the precautions necessary to retain that support. 34
- 35. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Impact & Influence #2 • Sciencewise was seen as bringing a 'badge of quality'. • Evaluation & feedback, suggests this was an exemplary process, particularly the stakeholder engagement in the governance, and the multi-strand consultation. 35
- 36. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Public dialogue is particularly valuable when…. • Policy is at an early stage of development and public interests and concerns may be satisfied if understood and responded to early • Issues are /potentially contentious and there is potentially strong public interest • Technical expertise and stakeholder views alone are not sufficient • Successful implementation will depend on getting the practicalities right
- 37. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Issue still being hotly debated…
- 38. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Currently being debated and voted on in Parliament
- 39. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Sciencewise Resources Project funding and support Dialogue & Engagement Specialists Training and Mentoring Social Intelligence & Research Website Newsletter 39
- 41. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Contact us Josephine Suherman-Bailey (josephine.suherman@sciencewise- erc.org.uk), Policy Analyst, Sciencewise Amy Pollard (amy.pollard@sciencewise- erc.org.uk), Dialogue Manager, Sciencewise. Website: www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Helpline: 01235 753 645 Carbon Emissions Case Study in Detail http://www.sciencewise- erc.org.uk/cms/assets/Uploads/Traject- CarbEmisReducv07.pdf/ 41
Editor's Notes
- Go through bullets, and then before next slide Why does this matter?
- Go through bullets, and then before next slide Why does this matter?
- No conferring – please just write down your answer to the polling question. Now, I’d like a show of hands – who is comfortable that they’ve got the right answer? Now, I’d like you to share and discuss your response with the rest of the people on your table for a couple of minutes… …ok. Time’s up. I’d like another show of hands – who is more comfortable or less uncomfortable with their answer now? And who has come up with some new issues or insights in the discussion? And who needs more time? This is what Sciencewise is hugely expert in: dialogue Not just a one way information push, but rather a two way process, a conversation It’s not as fast as a poll, though they may be able to support you if you do need to poll… Dialogue – participants takes part over two weekends 1st weekend: given information, access to experts etc 2nd weekend: time to debate and discuss Done well, dialogue is an open interactive process that can help you explore and understand the risks and benefits of new technology, how to minimise the risks and maximise the benefits and give you a better basis for investment decisions.
- Go through bullets, and then before next slide Why does this matter?
- Bottom line The public are the ultimate customer, innovation will only work if it brings mutual benefits PAS 2014: 7 in 10 people said scientists should listen more to what ordinary people think Half of them think that technologists are very secretive 73% want technologists to share information on technology before it is developed Engage to reduce risk of failure and learn from your customers – benefits outweigh costs For example, Sciencewise sponsored work on cyber security cost £140k, industry wide benefits of billions
- Go through bullets, and then before next slide Why does this matter?
- What department has decided (ie things that are no longer open to influence, even if there is significant pressure or backlash) What are department preferences (but these may be open to negotiation, change or influence if particularly strong views, important information or insights come to light from stakeholders) What is open (department has no preference)
- Go through bullets, and then before next slide Why does this matter?
- The impact of deliberative engagement on policy 1. Supports the development of policy that goes with the grain of public opinion gives government the confidence that a potentially controversial policy is possible A Sciencewise sponsored dialogue on Mitochondrial replacement, run by the Department of Health, was part of a suite of public engagement activities aimed at opening up to public views on the ethics and science of new IVF-based techniques designed to avoid hereditary mitochondrial disease, which can cause a number of rare but serious and potentially fatal conditions, being transferred from mothers to their children. One person in 6,500 has a mitochondrial disease that can lead to serious health issues meaning that around 12,000 live with these conditions. In spite of significant and often negative press coverage (e.g. on 'three parent families'), public participants supported the new technique if it could prevent serious illness - as long as it was scrupulously overseen by an appropriate regulatory body. The final guidelines are expected to be published in December 2013 and evaluations indicate that the Sciencewise sponsored dialogue was critical for their development. The 2010 Sciencewise sponsored dialogue on Animals in research , run by the Department of Health and the academy of Medical Sciences, identified the boundaries of public acceptability in these research areas, including those areas that would require special scrutiny in future when considering licences for research. This fed into the adoption in the UK of the EU Directive on experimentation on animals in research. The AMS believed that the dialogue had influenced the lack of an objections to the publication of the proposals by religious groups, following the well documented public input. 2. Delivers cost effective public dialogue which can lead to significant short and long term financial savings The 2011 Sciencewise sponsored public dialogue on wellbeing (run by the Department of Health and new economics foundation in 2011) demonstrated that a national social marketing campaign would not be effective in achieving the desired behaviour change. The decision not to proceed with the campaign saved DH an estimated £10 million per year; the dialogue cost £264,000 in total. Private conversations confirm that the dialogue provided the evidence needed to inform the internal departmental debate that led to this decision. 3. Opens up the debate by engaging the public increases the responsiveness and accountability of policy. The 2011 Sciencewise sponsored Synthetic biology, run by BBSRC and EPSRC, contributed to the ethical, social and regulatory elements of the Synthetic Biology Roadmap for the UK. The results also influenced the scope, tone and content of the Joint Synthetic Biology Initiative, which provides research funds of £24 million, and was seen by several policy makers involved as having avoided a 'GM situation'. The global synthetic biology market was estimated to grow from $1.6 billion in 2011 to $10.8 billion in 20165 ; the Synthetic Biology public dialogue cost £334,000). In 2013 Sciencewise sponsored a health research public dialogue, run by the NHS Health Research Authority, to feed into a new agenda for Transparent Research. The agenda, which was published in May 2013, drew on a range of evidence including the results of the dialogue. The input from the public particularly affected the section of the agenda on publication of research results and has led to on going work to develop a public involvement strategy to set standards and guidance on how participants should be informed about the outcome of health research findings. 4. Supports behaviour change in complex and controversial areas of policy. The 2009-2011 Sciencewise sponsored Low Carbon Communities Challenge (LCCC), run by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), resulted in 8,026 low carbon measures delivered in LCCC areas, from low energy light bulbs to a 1.2MW biomass district heating system, creating a theoretical annual carbon saving of 3,062,091kg of CO2. Other outcomes included stronger local networks and greater levels of partnership working, the creation of new organisations such as mutual Community Energy Companies; and social outcomes such as residents associations, a community cinema, a community orchard and a community shop. DECC has since built on the LCCC by embedding the community led model into its thinking around new initiatives such as the Local Energy Assessment Fund (LEAF), and the move to involve community organisations in the delivery of the Green Deal.
- Key message here is to get across what we are practically, but also what is different about us compared to other parts of government. Brief detail Sciencewise brings something different to the policy process from other bits of Whitehall. has some resource; SW has cross-Govt remit to do this stuff; understands how engage public from better comms of issues to working collaboratively and specifically can support on more deliberative forms of engagement;
- Go through bullets, and then before next slide Why does this matter?
- Remotely Piloted Aircraft systems