Introduction to public dialogue
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•201 views
Slides from Amy Pollard's presentation to Open Policy 2015 introducing public dialogue and sciencewise to policy makers from across Whitehall. 23rd Feb 2015.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (12)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (13)
Similar to Introduction to public dialogue
Similar to Introduction to public dialogue (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Introduction to public dialogue
- 1. Introducing public dialogue Amy Pollard Dialogue Manager, Sciencewise Twitter @AmyRPollard
- 2. 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. 2
- 3. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk 3 The engagement spectrum
- 4. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Decide Announce Defend vs Engage Deliberate Decide
- 5. Costs of decisions Simple, uncontroversial decisions A narrow engagement approach is likely to be more cost effective
- 6. Costs of decisions Complex, controversial decisions Invest in extensive engagement upfront to prevent costs spiralling out of control longer-term ExtensiveNarrow
- 8. 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 8
- 9. 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 9
- 10. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Success factors • Direct involvement of policy-makers • Policy-maker responsibility to commission • Strong, timely links to policy • Scale and representation • Strong governance and oversight • Balanced and impartial information • Good relationships with public participants 10
- 12. www.sciencewise-erc.org.uk Sciencewise Resources Project funding and support Dialogue & Engagement Specialists Training and Mentoring Social Intelligence & Research Website Newsletter 12
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?
- 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;