Narratives in Public Deliberation: Empowering Gene Editing Debate with Storytelling.

Gene editing in the environment must consider uncertainty about potential benefits and risks for different populations and under different conditions. There are disagreements about the weight and balance of harms and benefits. Deliberative and community-led approaches offer the opportunity to engage and empower diverse publics to co-create responses and solutions to controversial policy choices in a manner that is inclusive of diverse perspectives. Stories, understood as situated accounts that reflect a person's life experiences, can enable the articulation of nuanced perspectives, diversify how perspectives are communicated, encourage wider participation, open dominant perspectives to challenge, and invite participants to assess appropriate empathy and precaution in collective positions. An emphasis on storytelling in deliberations on gene editing of organisms emphasizes carefully designed recruitment and facilitation to support hearing from a range of perspectives, including those that present a different set of assumptions than those that may be held by experts or other stakeholders, among these, consideration of how to understand our relationships to nature.

Deliberation on Childhood Vaccination in Canada: Public Input on Ethical Trade-Offs in Vaccination Policy.

BACKGROUND: Policy decisions about childhood vaccination require consideration of multiple, sometimes conflicting, public health and ethical imperatives. Examples of these decisions are whether vaccination should be mandatory and, if so, whether to allow for non-medical exemptions. In this article we argue that these policy decisions go beyond typical public health mandates and therefore require democratic input. METHODS: We report on the design, implementation, and results of a deliberative public forum convened over four days in Ontario, Canada, on the topic of childhood vaccination. RESULTS: 25 participants completed all four days of deliberation and collectively developed 20 policy recommendations on issues relating to mandatory vaccinations and exemptions, communication about vaccines and vaccination, and AEFI (adverse events following immunization) compensation and reporting. Notable recommendations include unanimous support for mandatory childhood vaccination in Ontario, the need for broad educational communication about vaccination, and the development of a no-fault compensation scheme for AEFIs. There was persistent disagreement among deliberants about the form of exemptions from vaccination (conscience, religious beliefs) that should be permissible, as well as appropriate consequences if parents do not vaccinate their children. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that conducting deliberative democratic processes on topics that are polarizing and controversial is viable and should be further developed and implemented to support democratically legitimate and trustworthy policy about childhood vaccination.

Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation.

PURPOSE: We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening. METHODS: A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17). LIMITATIONS: Single location and medical decision. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.

Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Public Engagement Imperative.

In the view of many, heritable human genome editing (HHGE) harbors the remedial potential of ridding the world of deadly genetic diseases. A Hippocratic obligation, if there ever was one, HHGE is widely viewed as a life-sustaining proposition. The national go/no-go decision regarding the implementation of HHGE, however, must not, in the collective view of the authors, proceed absent thorough public engagement. A comparable call for an "extensive societal dialogue" was recently issued by the International Commission on the Clinical Use of Human Germline Genome Editing. In this communication, the authors lay out the foundational principles undergirding the formation, modification, and evaluation of public opinion. It is against this backdrop that the societal decision to warrant or enjoin the clinical conduct of HHGE will doubtlessly transpire.

Public perspectives on disinvestments in drug funding: results from a Canadian deliberative public engagement event on cancer drugs.

BACKGROUND: Decisions relating to the funding of new drugs are becoming increasingly challenging due to a combination of aging populations, rapidly increasing list prices, and greater numbers of drug-indication pairs being brought to market. This is especially true in cancer, where rapid list price inflation is coupled with steeply rising numbers of incident cancer cases. Within a publicly funded health care system, there is increasing recognition that resource allocation decisions should consider the reassessment of, and potential disinvestment from, currently funded interventions alongside new investments. Public input into the decision-making process can help legitimize the outcomes and ensure priority-setting processes are aligned with public priorities. METHODS: In September 2014, a public deliberation event was held in Vancouver, Canada, to obtain public input on the topic of cancer drug funding. Twenty-four members of the general public were tasked with making collective recommendations for policy-makers about the principles that should guide funding decisions for cancer drugs in the province of British Columbia. Deliberative questions and decision aids were used to elicit individuals' willingness to make trade-offs between expenditures and health outcomes. RESULTS: Participants discussed the implications of disinvestment decisions from cancer drugs in terms of its impact on patient choice, fairness and quality of life. Their discussions indicate that in order for a decision to disinvest from currently-funded cancer drugs to be acceptable, it must align with three main principles: the decision must be accompanied by significant gains, described both in terms of cost savings and opportunities to re-invest elsewhere in the health care system; those who are currently prescribed a cancer drug should be allowed to continue their course of treatment (referred to as a continuance clause, or "grandfathering" approach); and it must consider how access to care for specialized populations is impacted. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this deliberation event provide insight into what is acceptable to British Columbians with respect to disinvestment decisions for cancer drugs. These recommendations can be considered within wider health system decision-making frameworks for funding decisions relating to all drugs, as well as for cancer drugs.

Addressing the affordability of cancer drugs: using deliberative public engagement to inform health policy.

BACKGROUND: Health system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada's publicly financed health system. METHODS: An approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum's citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement. Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants' views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically. RESULTS: A total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations. Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using 'real-world' evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients' independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live. CONCLUSIONS: The next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.

Sharing linked data sets for research: results from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Research using linked data sets can lead to new insights and discoveries that positively impact society. However, the use of linked data raises concerns relating to illegitimate use, privacy, and security (e.g., identity theft, marginalization of some groups). It is increasingly recognized that the public needs to be consulted to develop data access systems that consider both the potential benefits and risks of research. Indeed, there are examples of data sharing projects being derailed because of backlash in the absence of adequate consultation. (e.g., care.data in the UK). OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: This paper describes the results of a public deliberation event held in April 2018 in Vancouver, British Columbia. The purpose of this event was to develop informed and civic-minded public advice regarding the use and the sharing of linked data for research with a focus on the processes and regulations employed to release data. The event brought together 23 members of the public over two weekends. RESULTS: Participants developed and voted on 19 policy-relevant statements. Voting results and the rationale behind any disagreements are reported here. Taken together, these statements provide a broad view of public support and concerns regarding the use of linked data sets for research and offer guidance on measures that can be taken to improve the trustworthiness of policies and process around data sharing and use. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, participants were supportive of research using linked data because of the value they provide to society. Participants expressed a desire to see the data access request process made more efficient to facilitate more research, as long as there are adequate protections in place around security and privacy of the data.

Public engagement pathways for emerging GM insect technologies.

Policy and management related to the release of organisms generated by emerging biotechnologies for pest management should be informed through public engagement. Regulatory decisions can be conceptually distinguished into the development of frameworks, the assessment of the release of a specific modified organism, and implementation decisions such as location and timing. Although these decisions are often intertwined in practice, the negotiation takes place at different stages of technology development and suggests different roles for public engagement. Some approaches to public engagement are more appropriate for different purposes and situations, and it is not always obvious how to go about matching the approach to the purpose. In addition to the diverse technologies involved in generating modified organisms, there are diverse publics with particular interests and different kinds of knowledge. Institutional interests range from commercial development to public regulation and future uptake. Contextual features, such as agency mandates, may limit or structure the extent and approach to public engagement. Different convening groups (government agencies, public interest groups, academics, businesses) and the kind of decision that is being considered determine what kind of input is needed and how the engaging groups will be constituted. This paper considers how the context of the release of genetically modified insects for pest control requires expanding approaches to the design of the public engagement.

Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Spending on cancer drugs has risen dramatically in recent years compared to other areas of health care, due in part to higher prices associated with newly approved drugs and increased demand for these drugs. Addressing this situation requires making difficult trade-offs between cost, harms, and ability to benefit when using public resources, making it important for policy makers to have input from many people affected by the issue, including citizens. METHODS: In September 2014, a deliberative public engagement event was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on the topic of priority setting and costly cancer drugs. The aim of the study was to gain citizens' input on the topic and have them generate recommendations that could inform cancer drug funding decisions in BC. A market research company was engaged to recruit members of the BC general public to deliberate over two weekends (four days) on how best to allocate resources for expensive cancer treatments. Participants were stratified based on the 2006 census data for BC. Participants were asked to discuss disinvestment, intravenous versus oral chemotherapy delivery, and decision governance. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11 software. RESULTS: Twenty-four individuals participated in the event and generated 30 recommendations. Participants accepted the principle of resource scarcity and the need of governments to make difficult trade-offs when allocating health-care resources. They supported the view that cost-benefit thresholds must be set for high-cost drugs. They also expected reasonable health benefits in return for large expenditures, and supported the view that some drugs do not merit funding. Participants also wanted drug funding decisions to be made in a non-partisan and transparent way. CONCLUSION: The recommendations from the Vancouver deliberation can provide guidance to policy makers in BC and may be useful in challenging pricing by pharmaceutical companies.

Community recommendations on biobank governance: Results from a deliberative community engagement in California.

United States-based biorepositories are on the cusp of substantial change in regulatory oversight at the same time that they are increasingly including samples and data from large populations, e.g. all patients in healthcare system. It is appropriate to engage stakeholders from these populations in new governance arrangements. We sought to describe community recommendations for biorepository governance and oversight using deliberative community engagement (DCE), a qualitative research method designed to elicit lay perspectives on complex technical issues. We asked for stakeholders to provide input on governance of large biorepositories at the University of California (UC), a public university. We defined state residents as stakeholders and recruited residents from two large metropolitan areas, Los Angeles (LA) and San Francisco (SF). In LA, we recruited English and Spanish speakers; in SF the DCE was conducted in English only. We recruited individuals who had completed the 2009 California Health Interview Survey and were willing to be re-contacted for future studies. Using stratified random sampling (by age, education, race/ethnicity), we contacted 162 potential deliberants of whom 53 agreed to participate and 51 completed the 4-day DCE in June (LA) and September-October (SF), 2013. Each DCE included discussion among deliberants facilitated by a trained staff and simultaneously-translated in LA. Deliberants also received a briefing book describing biorepository operations and regulation. During the final day of the DCE, deliberants voted on governance and oversight recommendations using an audience response system. This paper describes 23 recommendations (of 57 total) that address issues including: educating the public, sharing samples broadly, monitoring researcher behavior, using informative consent procedures, and involving community members in a transparent process of biobank governance. This project demonstrates the feasibility of obtaining meaningful input on biorepository governance from diverse lay stakeholders. Such input should be considered as research institutions respond to changes in biorepository regulation.

Public engagement in priority-setting: results from a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control.

Decision-makers are challenged to incorporate public input into priority-setting decisions. We conducted a pan-Canadian survey of decision-makers in cancer control to investigate the types of evidence, especially evidence supplied by the public, that are utilized in health care priority-setting. We further examined how normative attitudes and contextual factors influence the use of public engagement as evidence at the committee level. Administered between November and December 2012, 67 respondents from 117 invited individuals participated in the survey. The results indicated that public engagement was infrequently utilized compared to clinical effectiveness evidence or cost evidence. General positive agreement between normative attitudes towards the use of evidence and the frequency of evidence utilization was observed, but absence of correlative agreement was found for the types of evidence that are supplied by the general public and for cost-effectiveness inputs. Regression analyses suggested that public engagement was unevenly utilized between jurisdictions and that educational background and barriers to implementing public input may decrease the odds of using public engagement as evidence. We recommend that institutions establish a link between committee members' normative attitudes for using public engagement and its real-world utilization.

From 'trust us' to participatory governance: Deliberative publics and science policy.

The last 20 years have seen a shift from the view that publics need to be educated so that they trust science and its governance to the recognition that publics possess important local knowledge and the capacity to understand technical information sufficiently to participate in policy decisions. There are now a variety of approaches to increasing the role of publics and advocacy groups in the policy and governance of science and biotechnology. This article considers recent experiences that demonstrate that it is possible to bring together those with policy making responsibility and diverse publics to co-produce policy and standards of practice that are technically informed, incorporate wide social perspectives and explicitly involve publics in key decisions. Further, the process of deliberation involving publics is capable of being incorporated into governance structures to enhance the capacity to respond to emerging issues with levels of public engagement that are proportionate to the issues.

Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.

Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation.

This paper reports on the design, implementation, and results of a structured public deliberation on human tissue biobanking conducted in Vancouver, Canada, in 2009. This study builds on previous work on the use of deliberative democratic principles and methods to engage publics on the social and ethical implications of human tissue biobanking. In a significant refinement of methods, we focus on providing public input to institutional practice and governance of biobanks using a tailored workbook structure to guide participants' discussion. Our focus is on the local context and practices of a particular institution, the BC BioLibrary. However, elements of both the methodological innovations and the ethical guidance implied by our findings are generalisable for biobanking internationally. Recommendations from the deliberative forum include issues of informed consent, privacy protections, collection of biospecimens, governance of biobanks, and how to manage the process of introduction between biobanks and potential donors. Notable findings include public support for research use of anonymised un-consented tissue samples when these come from archived collections, but lack of support when they are collected prospectively.

From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks.

Biobanks are increasingly hailed as powerful tools to advance health research. The social and ethical challenges associated with the implementation and operation of biobanks are equally well-documented. One of the proposed solutions to these challenges involves trading off a reduction in the specificity of informed consent protocols with an increased emphasis on governance. However, little work has gone into formulating what such governance might look like. In this paper, we suggest four general principles that should inform biobank governance and illustrate the enactment of these principles in a proposed governance model for a particular population-scale biobank, the British Columbia (BC) Generations Project. We begin by outlining four principles that we see as necessary for informing sustainable and effective governance of biobanks: (1) recognition of research participants and publics as a collective body, (2) trustworthiness, (3) adaptive management, and (4) fit between the nature of a particular biobank and the specific structural elements of governance adopted. Using the BC Generations Project as a case study, we then offer as a working model for further discussion the outlines of a proposed governance structure enacting these principles. Ultimately, our goal is to design an adaptive governance approach that can protect participant interests as well as promote effective translational health sciences.

In the public interest: assessing expert and stakeholder influence in public deliberation about biobanks.

Providing technical and experiential information without overwhelming participants' perspectives presents a major challenge to public involvement in policy decisions. This article reports the design and analysis of a case study on incorporating expert and stakeholder knowledge without including them as deliberators, while supporting deliberative participants' ability to introduce and critically assess different perspectives. Analysis of audio-recorded deliberations illustrates how expert and stakeholder knowledge was cited, criticized and incorporated into deliberations. In conclusion, separating experts and stakeholders from deliberations may be an important prima facie principle when the goal is to enhance citizen representation on technical issues and related policy.