1. Citizens’ contributions to the public agenda on animal cloning: project manager Ida-Elisabeth Andersen Structure of the presentation: 1.What is the Danish Board of Technology? 2.Background in government recommendation 3.BioTIK project: the method 4.Main conclusions and results 5.Recommendations to policy makers 6.How can impacts of technology assessments be understood and evaluated?

2. 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

3. The Danish Board of Technology from 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Main questions Attitudes among citizens to acceptability of animal cloning Can BioTIK criteria be used by citizens

7. 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

8. 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

9. The interview meeting 4 meetings/3 hours – 4 locations – 111 participants Recruitement, invitations, programme Introduction to animal cloning Fill in questionnaire Group interviews

10. 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?

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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