The Danish Board of Technology

• Follow technological development

• Carry out independent assessments on possibilities and consequences of technology for society and the citizen

• Communicate results to parliament, other decision makers, and Danish population

• Advise Parliament and government

The Danish Board of Technologyfrom our toolbox

• Participatory TA– Consensus conf.

– Scenario workshop

– Future Search

– Perspective workshop

• Expert analysis– Cross disciplinary

work groups and

– Brainstorm

• Polls– Choice Questionnaire– Voting conference

• Advisory function– Parliamentary

hearings– Newsletter to

Parliament

• Public debate and publications

What is citizens’ participation in TA

• Process including others than traditional decision makers – Knowledge/experience from affected supports

knowledge base for decision making

– Interest- and valueinput from affected

– bridgebuilding

Background for the study

• Government recommendation, 2000

• BioTIK group presented ethical criteria

• DBT was asked to test if citizens can use criteria by answering questionnaire

• Questionnaire to be used in citizens’ consultation

• Animal cloning used as test case

Main questions

• Attitudes among citizens to acceptability of animal cloning

• Can BioTIK criteria be used by citizens

Purposes of consultation

• Transparent and trustworthy contribution to public debate

• Carefull public assessment

• Contribute to dialogue – perspective: ”social contract”

• Presentation of Danish citizens’ assessments

• Answers: informed and reflected

The method:– tasks to be done

• Translate the ethical criteria into a standard questionnaire

• Construct a questionnaire on animal cloning

• Conduct a study on citizens’ reflected attitudes to animal cloning

The interview meeting

• 4 meetings/3 hours – 4 locations – 111 participants

• Recruitement, invitations, programme

• Introduction to animal cloning

• Fill in questionnaire

• Group interviews

Points for reflections

• The translation problem: from ethical criteria to questions on use of e.c. to assess and weigh costs and benefits

• The combination of quantitative and qualitative method

• Recruitement – who were the citizens?

The ethical criteria

a. economic and qualitative benefits – (use and benefits)

b. autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability – (integrity)

c. just distribution of benefits and burdens – (distribution)

d. codetermination and openness – (discourse)

The translation problems

• Is it meaningful and do-able?

• Will citizens be framed by experts’ visions of ethics?

• BioTIK criteria are broad/embracing

• Separation of criteria is not for real problems

• Concepts used are broad and unclear

Proposed solutions:

• Reduce complexity and ambiguity

• Ask questions in a context

• Construct dilemmas and concrete scenarios

• Allow answers, which are not asked in questionnaire

• Allow people to say no to animal cloning regardless of possible benefits

Combination of qualitative and quantitative

• Dialogues in group interviews compensated preframing

• Dialogues made interpretations and analysis more valid

• Questionnaire fill in prepared and focused people

Animal cloning as part of general political discourse

• Technology as train for development

• Research and politics

• Research and business

• Quality of food – and hunger in 3. World

• Diseases and possible treatments

• Prioritising in health care

• Nuclear energy and other risky tech.

• etc

Citizens and ethics

• Single individual vis a vis common good

• Business profits vis a vis common good

• Ethics should be used to show where limits are

• Ethics is about commonly accepted guidelines

• Ethics is politics in disguise

Main conclusions and results

• Overall: one third declare to be against – to be pro – to assess from case to case

• Big minority 20% say no – regardless of possible benefits

• 80% pro medical application – 70% against food applications

• Everybody is worried about risks• 80% are not willing to get benefits if the

price is long term risks

General conclusions

• citizens can assess pros and cons of animal cloning in a well argumented way –

• citizens tend to agree with the ethical criteria in general

• disagreements occur, when they prioritise dilemmas and contradictions – in a concrete context

• Agreement that regulations in the field of genetic engineering should be decided politically after consulting relevant and concerned stakeholders 

Some recommendations to policy makers

• Involve concerned citizens – use citizens’ consultation

• Consider a permanent citizens’ panel• Engage and motivate citizens to take part• Don’t let ethics become an experts’

exercise – ethics is politics in disguise• Assessments are dependent on context• Let researchers do research – not play

policy makers